Performance Improvement Quarterly, 16(4) pp.
5-22
Training in Its Organizational Context:
Sharing Responsibility
Lois Wright
Virginia Commonwealth University
ABSTRACT
A persistent concern of those in-
volved with planning, delivering, and
evaluating training as well as of man-
agers is whether training “works.” Ad-
dressing that question, this paper pro-
poses that training must be integrated
into other aspects of the organization if
it is to achieve lasting results. In other
words, training must be viewed within
its organizational context rather than
as a stand-alone activity. Viewing train-
ing contextually raises both training
implementation and training evalua-
tion issues. From the implementation
perspective, issues abound concerning
Does training work? The question
is both raised and answered in the
title of the article “Does Training
Make a Difference? No!” (Gast, 1992).
The answer, however, is partially
contradicted by the article’s text as
it presents this qualification: Train-
ing alone will not produce many of the
results we hope for, but if training is
integrated into other aspects of the
organization, it can achieve results.
In other words, training must be
viewed in context rather than as a
stand-alone activity.
This raises both training imple-
mentation and training evaluation
issues. From the implementation
perspective, issues abound concern-
ing the best way to link training
with other parts of the organization
Volume 16, Number 4/2003
the best way to link training with other
parts of the organization to enhance
its effectiveness. From the perspective
of evaluation, the difficult issue of ac-
countability arises: Training cannot
take responsibility for things beyond
its control, but it also cannot abdicate
responsibility. How does shared re-
sponsibility for results work within an
organization? This paper explores these
issues by reviewing literature related to
training in context, presenting a model
for understanding training within an
organizational context, and presenting
practice implications for trainers.
to enhance its effectiveness. From the
perspective of evaluation, the difficult
issue of accountability arises: Train-
ing cannot take responsibility for
things beyond its control, but it also
cannot abdicate responsibility. How
does shared responsibility for results
work within an organization?
This paper will explore these is-
sues by reviewing literature related
to training in its organizational
context, presenting a model for un-
derstanding training within an or-
ganizational context, and presenting
practice implications for trainers.
Review of Literature
A rich and diverse body of litera-
ture attests that training does not
belong to any one discipline or sector.
5
Important articles related to various
aspects of training appear in journals
from the fields of psychology (cogni-
tive, industrial, organizational, and
instructional), business, industry,
management, military, and human
services as well as from the specific
field of training. Because the methods
of these fields tend to differ, the infor-
mation they offer may be based upon,
for example, expert opinions, case
studies, other carefully documented
observations, or experimental stud-
ies. Despite these methodological
differences, each field’s contribution
is valuable, and considerable con-
vergence in terms of findings and
conclusions is evident. The articles
reviewed here are presented accord-
ing to three primary focal areas—the
role of training within an organiza-
tion; specific linkages between train-
ing and other organizational units,
processes, or concerns; and integra-
tive frameworks for understanding
training contextually. Last, a sum-
mary of the literature is presented
and issues are identified.
The Role of Training within an
Organization
Basic to any discussion of contex-
tualizing training is consideration
of how the role of training has been
reconceptualized over the past three
decades. Historically, training was
seen as a peripheral activity (Seipel,
1986), which focused primarily on en-
suring that employees had the skills
they needed to do their jobs (Nixon,
1995). The business of training was
staging training events—workshops,
seminars, and other short-term
events—and trainers’ concerns cen-
tered around techniques related to
writing and delivering training (Gill,
1995). Training tended to be tactical
6 Performance Improvement Quarterly
rather than strategic, responding to
problems or troubleshooting rather
than anticipating needs (Broadwell,
1991). According to Rossett (1996),
the focus was on individuals rather
than the organization, and trainers
were not inclined to challenge the or-
ganizational values and practices, to
question requests, to risk conflict, or
to take active roles in organizational
strategic planning.
In partial response to demands for
accountability and new management
philosophies that began to dominate
around the 1980s, training has been
reconceptualized. Rossett (1996) as-
serts that relegating training to only
providing instructional events to
teach job skills fails to appreciate its
potential richness. Kramlinger (1992)
agrees: “If we only provide courses
and curricula to build established
competencies in individual learners,
we will be working on the trailing
rather than the leading edge” (p. 50).
He suggests that, though training
will continue to involve writing and
delivering curricula, these activities
must be done differently, with greater
emphasis on problem solving, com-
munication skills, and application.
Thus, newer notions of the role
of training show distinct changes
from the older notions. Gill (1995)
writes that we must shift the focus
from training to learning (while
acknowledging that the shift is oc-
curring very slowly) and that we are
not in the training business but the
learning, performance, and value-
added business. Stolovitch and Keeps
(2002) see the mission of training as
to transform performance capability
rather than to transmit information.
Rummler (1996, April) agrees that
training is in the performance busi-
ness and adds that the trainer must
understand what organizational fac- chaos, and confusion of the modern
tors contribute to performance and workplace. He says trainers can
must serve as a performance con- create a benign revolution. Another
sultant. These ideas clearly imply rich area for training is around emo-
that training has organization-wide tional intelligence—self-awareness,
responsibility. Training is being rede- self-regulation, self-motivation,
fined, according to Kramlinger (1992), social awareness, and social skills—
as helping organizations meet their characteristics found to be highly
objectives through promotion of pur- related to productivity (Cherniss
poseful organization-wide learning. & Goleman, 1998). A particularly
The new definition calls for new innovative suggestion is that, as or-
training strategies. We now recognize ganizational climate is such a potent
that most learning factor in transfer
occurs on the job of training, train-
rather than in iso- The new ing might address
lated training ses- how supervisors
sions and that definition calls and other manag-
work itself is the for new training ers can provide a
primary vehicle positive climate for
for learning. Thus,
strategies. We now transfer (Rouiller &
trainers must use recognize that Goldstein, 1993).
strategies (e.g., most learning Also affecting
working to adopt the role of train-
policies that en- occurs on the job ing is the reality
courage spontane- rather than in that boundaries be-
ous learning, es- tween certain orga-
tablishing learn-
isolated training nizational functions
ing labs, serving sessions and that and structures are
as learning con- work itself is the becoming blurred,
sultants or fa- particularly in re-
cilitators) to sup- primary vehicle lation to training
port continuous, for learning. and organizational
spontaneous, on- development (Ga-
the-job learning lagan, 1996). These
(Kramlinger, 1992). Gill (1995) ad- two functions, historically seen as
dresses the need for trainers to de- separate, are now merging. Gill (1995,
velop a range of alliances across the in Galagan, 1996) suggests linking
organization to support this kind of training to organizational needs and
learning. strategic goals, managing training
New notions concerning the top- with a systems view, and evaluating
ics that training should address training with an eye to continuous im-
have arisen, broadening the earlier provement, all activities traditionally
emphasis on specific job skills. Nixon associated with organizational devel-
(1995) suggests that training can opment. Rossett (1996) references in-
address changing the organizational creasing interest in aligning organiza-
culture to empower workers to deal tion development and training based
with the uncertainty, complexity, on their shared focus on better perfor-

Volume 16, Number 4/2003 7

mance and commitment to systemic
approaches.
Last, the movement is toward more
blending of education and training.
Though writers have distinguished
education from training, with train-
ing focusing on job-specific skills that
will be immediately taken back to the
work place and education focusing on
more broad-based, development-ori-
ented learning (Gordon, 1991; U.S.
Coast Guard, 1994), there is agree-
ment that both are within the purview
of training and are directed toward
organizational improvement.
Linkages between Training and
Other Organizational Units,
Processes, or Concerns
The new role and responsibilities
of training can be realized only in a
context that provides rich linkages
to other parts of the organization,
other processes, and organization-
wide concerns. Gill (1995) refers to
the dynamic relationships between
training and every other aspect of
the organization. Thus, training is
certainly not peripheral but must be
a central activity of the organization,
responsive to changes in the organi-
zation and in some cases sharing
leadership for those changes. This
section reviews some of the linkages
that have been addressed in the lit-
erature between training and other
aspects of the organization. These
linkages group roughly around three
complementary functions: obtaining
information about training needs,
supporting transfer of training, and
giving information back to the orga-
nization.
Obtaining Information
Training is built on some assess-
ment of what is needed, and the cur-
8 Performance Improvement Quarterly
rent perspective is that relying on one
needs assessment method, such as a
formal assessment of knowledge and
skills, is inadequate. Rather, train-
ing should obtain information from
across the organization, including
various organizational reports and
data that tell how things are going
and may alert training to actual or po-
tential problems (Broadwell, 1991).
Training staff must be privy to
organizational information and must
be included in conversations at the
highest organizational level. Grider,
Capps, and Toombs (1990) advise ex-
ecutives who want effective training
programs to integrate training with
corporate strategic plans, provide
adequate resources for evaluation of
training, and establish information
networks. Goldstein (1993) suggests
that training should be based on a sys-
tem-wide analysis of organizational
components that affect training to
ensure congruence of training with
organizational goals, resources, con-
straints, and support for transfer. This
position recognizes that performance
and outcome problems may be due to
factors other than individual capabil-
ity. Even when the workforce is highly
competent, some job performance
problems can and will continue, and
desired outcomes of training will be
incompletely realized. The U.S. Coast
Guard (1994) makes the case for us-
ing a systematic process for analyzing
job performance and job requirements
to identify the multiple root causes of
performance problems and to develop
an appropriate mix of solutions.
Rossett (1996) asserts that train-
ing results depend upon alignment
between what people are taught and
what the organization practices and
applauds. Thus, training must include
these considerations in its needs as-
sessments. Further, systems-wide which to measure, and he charges
information can help pinpoint inter- that, in reality, human resources de-
ventions other than training—team- partments and training often do not
building, culture change, and better communicate.
flow of information—that are related Thomas (1997) agrees that the
to perceived performance problems. performance appraisal should be a
Indeed, according to Rummler (1996, major tool for assessing needs as
April), how training staff respond to well as for understanding training
a training request around a perfor- results. However, like Broadwell, he
mance problem is critical. Rather than offers a warning: Appraising employ-
assuming that training is the solution, ee performance is a political process,
the training staff need organization- often tied to raises and subject to su-
wide information pervisors’ need to
to understand the avoid conflict and
“anatomy of per- The new role and preserve supervi-
formance” (p. 32), responsibilities sor-supervisee re-
as they question lationships. Thus,
what processes af- of training can the usefulness of
fect performance, be realized only performance ap-
where and how the praisal as a train-
breakdown occurs,
in a context ing needs assess-
who is involved in that provides ment tool depends
the breakdown, rich linkages to upon the extent to
whether training which it actually
alone can amelio- other parts of identifies and doc-
rate the problem, the organization, uments good and
and whether there poor performance
is a better or more
other processes, and provides high
economical solu- and organization- quality feedback.
tion to a particu- wide concerns. Broadwell(1991)
lar performance identifies training
problem. itself as a source of
Much has been written about the data about organizational needs.
value of the performance appraisal as Thus, trainers need to hear what
an important source of information trainees have to say about obstacles
regarding training needs. Broadwell to performance and need to take that
(1991) suggests that using the perfor- information back to others in the or-
mance appraisal to inform training al- ganization for investigation, verifica-
lows those most knowledgeable about tion, and action as indicated.
and responsible for performance to tell
the organization how things are going, Supporting Transfer
enabling training staff to anticipate Training has been roundly criti-
potential problems and prepare pre- cized for lack of effects. According to
ventive training. However, he warns Stolovitch and Keeps (2002), training
that this means the performance ap- as traditionally understood—a train-
praisal must have good performance ing event—rarely works and has little
indicators and standards against staying power. Broad and Newstrom

Volume 16, Number 4/2003 9

(1992) assert that most training dol-
lars are wasted, because over 80% of
learning is not fully transferred to
the job. Ford and Weissbein (1997)
see the situation as even worse, esti-
mating that at least 90% of American
industry’s spending on training fails
to result in transfer to the job.
Transfer refers to the extent to
which the learning from training is
applied on the job, generalized from
one performance situation to another,
and maintained over time. According
to most writers, transfer problems lie
not so much in training as in the lack
of contextual, environmental sup-
ports for transfer. Rummler (1996,
April) sees performance problems as
due primarily to environmental rath-
er than personal factors, and Thayer
and Teachout (1995, in Salas & Can-
non-Bowers, 2001) address the need
for a climate that supports transfer
of training. Stolovitch and Keeps
(2002) review extensive research
to conclude that most performance
deficiencies are not a result of skill
and knowledge gaps but rather are
due to environmental factors. For-
tunately, environmental factors can
be understood and shaped (Salas &
Cannon-Bowers, 2001).
The literature addresses numer-
ous aspects of the work environment
that can support or erode transfer of
training. Stolovitch and Keeps (2002)
suggest that the problem may relate
to communication of expectations,
access to information, availability of
resources, values, incentives, appro-
priateness of procedures, hiring prac-
tices, and administrative obstacles.
The U.S. Coast Guard (1994) suggests
three categories of factors that affect
transfer, including not only skills
and knowledge (e.g., relevant train-
ing content, timely training, train-
10
ing aids, relevant practice, sufficient
practice, stimulation, appropriate
strategies, coaching, and on-the-job
training) but also work conditions
and ergonomics (e.g., job aids, tools,
conditions, time, criteria, work load,
assistance, policy, supervision, and
diversity) and incentives and moti-
vation (e.g., feedback, compensation,
satisfaction, consequences, worthy
tasks, clear priorities, confidence,
and strong leadership). Colarelli and
Montei (1996) report that turnover,
organization size, and technological
complexity correlate highly with
transfer of training. Seipel (1986)
addresses additional contextual
variables that, though difficult to
isolate, affect transfer of training:
the size and physical condition of an
organization, its tax base, political
considerations, rewards and disin-
centives, policies, training evaluation
methodology, and the complementar-
ity between training and hiring.
The role of supervisors in support-
ing training effectiveness has received
much attention. Grace and Straub
(1991) assert that middle manag-
ers, traditionally excluded from
involvement with training, should
be included in every step of design,
delivery, marketing, analysis, evalu-
ation, and reinforcement. Poertner
(2001) sees transfer of training as a
complex process in which supervisory
support may be the most critical ele-
ment at the organizational level. The
supervisor is uniquely positioned to
shape the environment for transfer
by creating the opportunities to use
learned material, encouraging risk-
taking, linking training to organi-
zational goals, coaching, mentoring,
modeling, attending to workload and
management issues, and rewarding
transfer. Ford, Quinones, Sego, and
Performance Improvement Quarterly
Sorra (1992) agree that transfer of helping middle managers become
training is enhanced when supervi- mentors and coaches; and using man-
sory attitudes are favorable and op- agers in delivery of training.
portunities to perform are available. Focusing specifically on emotional
Grace and Straub (1991) address intelligence, Cherniss and Goleman
the waste of training dollars when (1998) address the unique difficul-
middle managers are not prepared ties of transfer of training regarding
to provide on-the- these competen-
job support for em- cies. Because emo-
ployees’ training The supervisor tions and behav-
and assert that iors springing from
including manag- is uniquely those emotions are
ers is the best way positioned to shape so deeply embed-
to ensure trans- ded in personality
fer of training. In-
the environment and interactional
formed managers for transfer by styles, transfer in-
are more apt to creating the volves unlearning
reinforce training. old habits as new
They have a great- opportunities to use ones develop, and
er investment in learned material, contextual issues
the success of the are particularly
training and are
encouraging risk- important. The
more apt to watch taking, linking work environment
for results, take training to presents many
responsibility for cues that support
transfer, and pro- organizational the old interac-
vide feedback to goals, coaching, tional styles that
the trainers about training was de-
results. The au-
mentoring, signed to weaken.
thors offer strate- modeling, Thus, specific su-
gies for ensuring attending to pervisory practic-
middle manage- es (e.g., superviso-
ment’s involve- workload and ry modeling, sup-
ment, including management port, and encour-
informing manag- agement) aimed
ers of training ob-
issues, and at interrupting
jectives, methodol- rewarding transfer. old interactional
ogy, and expected styles are especial-
results before the ly critical.
training takes place; meeting with Several authors address the role
managers to identify any conflicts of coworkers or peers in transfer of
between the planned training and training, though this is less well ex-
procedures or policy, thus increasing plicated than is the role of supervisors.
the relevance of the training; offering Gill (1995) asserts that most learning
workshops for managers that corre- comes from coworkers, so training is
late with worker training; helping tie everyone’s business. Salas and Can-
training to performance deficiencies; non-Bowers (2001) view peer support

Volume 16, Number 4/2003 11

(along with subordinate and supervi-
sor support) as central. Cherniss and
Goleman (1998) discuss peer support
as important for transfer of training
on emotional intelligence. Poertner
(2001) and Ford, Quinones, Sego, and
Sorra (1992) also address the impor-
tance of peer support.
Giving Information
The literature directly address-
ing the function of training in giving
information back to the organization
is scant. However, the topic is im-
plicitly addressed in Patton’s (1997)
discussion of reporting results in
Utilization-Focused Evaluation and
Preskill and Torres’s (1999) chapter
6, “Applying Learning” in Evaluative
Inquiry for Learning in Organiza-
tions. Certainly, the discussion to
follow on learning organizations
includes establishing processes for
ongoing multidimensional dialogue
within an organization.
Broadwell (1991) discusses clos-
ing the informational loop regarding
training. After responding to infor-
mation from the organization about
a training need, training staff should
go back to the original source of the
information to see if the need was
adequately addressed. Further, dur-
ing training classes as the trainees
reveal transfer problems, the trainer
should register this information, in-
vestigating it further and/or passing
it along to the appropriate organi-
zational people or units (Broadwell,
1991). The U.S. Coast Guard (1994)
recommends taking information on
training effectiveness back to the
organization to assess all policies,
standards, procedures, and resource
utilization to maximize training, edu-
cation, and development and to sup-
port organizational improvement.
12
Integrative Frameworks
for Understanding Training
Contextually
Two approaches that in recent
years have influenced our under-
standing of organizations and how
they function and likewise have
reshaped thinking around the place
of training within organizations
are systems theory and the learn-
ing-organization approach. The two
have much in common and are often
discussed together. Systems theory
focuses on the interrelatedness of
all elements within and surrounding
the organization. Organizations com-
prise interdependent elements, each
affecting and affected by the others
(see Rummler & Brache, 1995). The
learning-organization approach fo-
cuses more on the purpose of organi-
zational interactions. It emphasizes
a culture in which every member
of the organization is constantly
engaged in dialogue and enquiry, is
cued in to hear new information from
across the organization, and shares
information to promote continuous
organizational improvement (see
Marquardt, 2002).
Organizations as Systems
In their article reviewing changes
in 30 years of training history, Salas
and Cannon-Bowers (2001) docu-
ment the increasing attention being
given to a systems view of training
and to organizational context. Ros-
sett (1996) credits Robert Mager and
Joe Harless with bringing systems
thinking and wholistic approaches
to training, challenging traditional
thinking and calling for a change to
a systems paradigm. Without this
change, according to Gill (1995),
training staff can always blame the
system for lack of demonstrated re-
Performance Improvement Quarterly
sults, because so many factors are
beyond their control. Systemic think-
ing brings these factors into training
staff’s sphere of influence, if not into
their span of direct control.
Rummler (1996, June) cites lack
of systems attention as the reason
so many organizational reforms over
the years have failed. Organizations
not only must understand themselves
as systems but also must understand
and adapt to the “supersystem” of
governmental environment, culture,
economy, markets, customers, sup-
pliers, and competitors, all of which
affect organizational goals, structure,
and availability and use of resources.
Neither job performance nor training
needs can be understood absent con-
sideration of a multiplicity of sys-
temic factors.
Learning Organizations
In the 1990s, Peter Senge’s The
Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice
of the Learning Organization (1990),
Geary Rummler and Alan Brache’s
Improving Performance: How to
Manage the White Space on the
Organization Chart (1990), Pedler,
Burgoyne, and Boydell’s The Learn-
ing Company: A Strategy for Sustain-
able Development (1994), Marquardt
and Reynolds’s The Global Learning
Organization (1994), and Watkins
and Marsick’s In Action: Creating
the Learning Organization (1996)
were a few of the important publica-
tions that brought not only systems
thinking but also the learning-orga-
nization approach to the attention of
managers.
Basic to a learning organization
is an expectation of continuous or-
ganization-wide learning (culture of
learning), knowledge generation and
sharing, critical systemic thinking,
Volume 16, Number 4/2003
use of information for organizational
improvement, a spirit of risk-taking,
reward for learning and innovation,
and people-centeredness (Benett &
O’Brien, 1994; Gephart, Marsick,
Van Buren, Spiro, & Senge, 1996).
The thinking is that the rate of
change and complexity of today’s
world demand that organizations
learn continuously and quickly. Or-
ganizational learning requires total
organizational involvement. It needs
the support of management and su-
pervisors, as it requires attention to
climate and structure, information
flow, work practices, rewards, and
feedback. Training, however, has a
special role in the learning organi-
zation. As the organization’s learn-
ing specialists, trainers have an
obligation to help people learn from
experience and from one another
and to build principles of organiza-
tional learning into training (Benett,
& O’Brien, 1994). The function of
training is thus redefined to include
helping to promote purposeful orga-
nization-wide learning rather than
only individual employee learning
(Kramlinger, 1992), consistent with
the emerging new role of training as
described earlier in this paper.
Having redefined learning as a
responsibility shared by the entire
organization, Kramlinger (1992)
asks what training can add. Quite
a bit. Strategies training may use in
support of its new role include intro-
ducing learning-organization ideas;
working with middle managers to
support them in developing employ-
ees; teaching the skills of listening
and negotiating; teaching versatility,
problem solving, and risk taking;
and focusing on application and con-
tinuous improvement in all training
sessions (Kramlinger, 1992). Other
13
strategies might include ensuring systems theory. A common purpose
mechanisms to encourage, maximize, integrating all organizational ele-
and coordinate learning across levels; ments is organizational learning for
carving out time for employees to re- continuous improvement.
flect on what they are learning; devel- Training events will continue to
oping systems to capture and share exist and to be the major product of
learning; and promoting a climate for training, and how to produce “better”
experimentation. events—the technology of training—
Despite strong support for a learn- will continue to be a primary issue
ing-organization approach, a warn- addressed by the literature and a ma-
ing is voiced by Gephart, Marsick, jor concern of trainers. Thus, tradi-
Van Buren, Spiro, and Senge (1996) tional training roles and activities
that the link be- will remain. How-
tween organiza- ever, much has
tional learning and The role of been added, with
actions may not be training has the understanding
straightforward, that training can-
as environmental broadened not be substantial-
barriers such as from primarily ly “better” in terms
resource limita- of effectiveness—
tions, political
planning and as measured by on-
constraints, legal implementing the-job behavior
sanctions, or imple- training events change and client
mentation prob- outcomes—absent
lems may inhibit to include an appreciation of
action. They sug- greater emphasis context.
gest that a close The literature
relationship be-
on engaging regarding contex-
tween organiza- in complex tuality poses three
tional learning and processes deeply central questions
employee behavior for training: Where
is likely only when embedded in the does training go for
abundant resourc- organization. information about
es, a supportive training needs?
reward system, What is training’s
and organizational flexibility exist. relationship to organizational ele-
ments that affect transfer of train-
Summary and Issues ing? What does training do with
The role of training has broadened evaluation results and other infor-
from primarily planning and imple- mation generated through training?
menting training events to include Answers to these questions relate to
greater emphasis on engaging in how the role of training is viewed,
complex processes deeply embed- the expected influence and contribu-
ded in the organization. Reciprocal tion of training, and the structure
relationships between and among and quality of relationships training
training staff and others in the orga- staff have with others within the
nization can be understood through organization.

14 Performance Improvement Quarterly

 The literature suggests unre-
solved issues around implementing
the ideas presented in this paper. An
intriguing general issue is whether
what organizations know to be best
practice is actually implemented.
Salas and Cannon-Bowers (2001)
ask the extent to which the science
of training has affected organiza-
tional practices and to what degree
lessons learned have been lessons
implemented. Their answer is that
we do not know. They conclude that,
though there has been a tremendous
growth in training research, whether
findings are being implemented is de-
batable. They then exhort trainers to
look to evidence-based guidelines on
how to optimize training outcomes
and to evaluate whether training
has been effective in furthering or-
ganizational goals. Stolovitch (2000)
expresses a similar idea, claiming
that organizational practices, specifi-
cally in human performance technol-
ogy, are currently outstripping their
theory and research base, resulting in
some questionable practices.
Another issue is possible limi-
tations in implementing learning
organization approaches. Gephart,
Marsick, Van Buren, Spiro, and
Senge’s (1996) warning that abun-
dant resources, a supportive reward
system, and organizational flexibility
must exist for learning-organization
approaches to be effective may be
sobering for some organizations,
perhaps especially for public human
services organizations, living as they
do with chronic resource shortages,
real and perceived bureaucratic and
political constraints, and sensitivity
to litigiousness. What is training’s
freedom to embrace a learning-orga-
nization approach within this kind of
environment?
Volume 16, Number 4/2003
A third issue relates to the call
from some authors for training to
move more into education and devel-
opment and to include topics that are
less skills oriented (e.g., emotional in-
telligence, self-directed learning, cre-
ating supportive climates), a change
which raises accountability and thus
evaluation challenges. Kirkpatrick
has argued that with these “soft
skills,” evaluations that go beyond
measuring trainee satisfaction and
knowledge acquisition may not be
appropriate (Gordon, 1991). If this
is the case, how might training staff
document the value-added of this sort
of intervention?
Model for Understanding
Training in Context
This paper has made the case
that training cannot be effectively
planned, implemented, or evaluated
absent a full appreciation of context.
Both systems thinking and learn-
ing-organization behaviors require
this appreciation. Figure 1 presents
a model of training in its organiza-
tional context, depicting the range
of connections between training and
other elements of the organization
that are necessary if training is to
achieve optimal results. The model
contains most of the elements of hu-
man performance and performance
improvement models presented by
other writers (see Rummler, 1999;
Van Tiem, Moseley, & Dessinger,
2000; Wile, 1996; and others de-
scribed in Stolovitch & Keeps, 1999).
This is not surprising, as training is
now understood as being in the per-
formance improvement business.
In this model training takes center
stage, not because it is deemed more
important than other aspects of the
organization but rather because the
15
model represents the perspective of
training as it views the rest of the
organization. The model does not pre-
scribe a process for performance im-
provement but rather depicts, from
the standpoint of training, shared
responsibility for performance
improvement. It shows the organi-
zational elements that trainers, as
organizational performance consul-
tants, should scan frequently, always
considering how each might inform
training design or delivery, how each
might enhance or threaten transfer
of training, and what others in the
organization need from training (in-
formation, consultation) to help them
enhance performance. Note that the
major categories represented by the
boxes are not mutually exclusive, as
some functions belong in more than
one category (e.g., supervision both
defines performance expectations
and supports performance/transfer).
However, an attempt was made to
assign each element to its primary
category.
The model does not reference
organizational units or positions but
rather the things (tangible and intan-
gible), functions, and characteristics
that comprise organizations. Varia-
tion exists among organizations in
where these reside, and one unit or
position may contribute to more than
one category of elements (e.g., human
resources functions contribute to
“Employees,” “Performance Expecta-
tions,” and “Performance Supports”).
It is up to training staff to identify
who within the organization “owns”
these various elements and to deter-
mine the relationships, alliances, and
communication patterns that must
be established to access them.
The broken lines in the model
depict the desired permeability of
16
the boundaries between various ele-
ments of the organization, indicating
a high level of interaction and infor-
mation exchange. The double arrows
indicate that the interactions are
always two-way, giving and getting.
Practice Implications
for Training
The model helps us see how train-
ing staff might begin to work in a
way that exploits their understand-
ing of context, maximizing training’s
contribution toward (but not sole
responsibility for) performance. It
suggests the following questions
that training staff might explore as
they move toward implementation of
a vision of training in context and of
shared responsibility.
External and Internal
Environments:
• Are there external conditions
that influence demands made
upon training (e.g., immediate
response, revised content, inno-
vative delivery)?
• Does the highest administrative
level sanction and support the
role of trainers as organizational
consultants?
• Is organizational support demon-
strated concretely through such
things as ongoing involvement
in strategic planning and seeking
the advice of training on impor-
tant organizational issues?
• Does management style at the
highest organizational level dem-
onstrate learning organization
thinking, including support for
free exchange of information?
• Does management have realistic
expectations of training, based
upon an understanding of the
many factors that influence per-
Performance Improvement Quarterly
 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������������� ����������������������������������������������������
�����������������������������������������������������������

�����������������
��������� ������������
������������������ ���������������������
�������� �������������
��������������� ���������������������
������������������� �������������������
������� �������������������
���������������� �����������
�������� �����������
����������� ����������������������
������������������ �������� ���������������������
�������������������� �������� ������������������
��������� �������������� �����������������
������������� ����������� �������������
������������ ����������� ��������

����������� �����������
������������ ������������������
����������������� �������������� ������������
������������� ����������� �������������������
������������������� ��������� ���������������������
������������� ��������������������� ����������������������
����������� �������������������� �������������
��������������� ��������� ���������������������
������ �������������������� ��������������
���������������� ����������������������� ��������������������
������������ ����������������������� �������������������
������������������ ����������������� ��������
������������� ����������������� ����������������
����������� ������������������� ������������
��������� ����������������� �����������������������
����������� ������������������
��������������������� ��������������
�������� ��������������
�����������������
���������������������
�������������������

��������������
�����������������

Figure 1. Training in its organizational context.

Volume 16, Number 4/2003 17

 formance and shared responsibili-
ty for performance improvement?
• Does management understand
that evaluations of training reflect
not only the quality of training but
also many other factors within the
organization?
• Do organization-wide culture
and morale support high perfor-
mance?
• Is the organization constantly
attuned to understanding and
satisfying customer needs as the
ultimate goal of training and of
performance improvement? Are
effective mechanisms for cus-
tomer feedback in place, and are
findings appropriately used?
• If the answer to any of these ques-
tions is “no,” what can training
staff do to encourage change?
Employees:
• Are trainees generally well suited
for their jobs, as demonstrated
through their responses to train-
ing? Do they have the basic
knowledge and skills to benefit
from training?
• Are position qualifications consis-
tent with job performance expec-
tations? What are the implications
for training?
• Are recruiting, hiring, and place-
ment practices geared toward
finding the best possible matches
of qualifications and job require-
ments?
• Can training staff discern any dif-
ficulties in employee motivation
or expectations that affect perfor-
mance and need to be communi-
cated to and possibly addressed by
others in the organization?
• Are there any special characteris-
tics of today’s workforce that affect
training content or delivery?
18
Performance Expectations:
• Do trainees understand the orga-
nization’s expectations of them?
• Are the organization’s written ma-
terials describing the job clear, accu-
rate, and available to employees?
• Are written job descriptions con-
sistent with expectations that
are communicated in other ways
(e.g., supervision, performance
appraisals, reward system)?
• Are there performance standards
that training must address?
• What do peers communicate
informally about performance
standards, and is this consistent
with formal expectations?
Basic Enablers of Performance:
• Does the physical environment
present any obstacles to perfor-
mance? Could changes in the
physical environment improve
performance?
• Is work organized (staffing patterns,
work flow) in a way that supports
high performance? Could changes
in the organization of work improve
performance (e.g., routinization of
simple tasks; leaving more time
for attention to quality; reassigning
some tasks or responsibilities)?
• What ongoing, sanctioned mecha-
nisms are in place to support train-
ing staff ’s communication with
others within the organization?
Is information sharing formally
built into the organization?
• Are workloads consistent with high
performance? If not, can they be re-
duced or addressed through chang-
es in the organization of work?
Performance Supports
(Transfer of Training):
• Do others in the organization un-
derstand that the effects of even
Performance Improvement Quarterly
 the highest quality training will
be limited absent a range of orga-
nizational supports?
• What do supervisors know about
the training that is offered, and are
they prepared to support it? What
should training do to help supervi-
sors support transfer of training?
• Do performance appraisal pro-
cesses and instruments address
the knowledge and skills on which
employees are trained? If not, how
can training staff influence these
or help supervisors use them dif-
ferently?
• How does peer culture support or
impede transfer of training? How
can training staff influence this?
• Does training directly offer a vari-
ety of methods of on-the-job support
to enhance training effects (e.g.,
consultation to units or supervisors,
coaching, supporting teamwork)?
• Is training closely enough tied to
job tasks that trainees will have
ample opportunities to use their
newly acquired knowledge and
skills before these fade?
• Are specific experiences that sup-
port transfer—realistic applica-
tion exercises that require deep
processing, in-class discussion
of organizational obstacles and
solutions, aids that can be taken
back to the job, and commitments
to on-the-job actions following
training—included in every train-
ing event?
• Are human resources policies and
services generally supportive of
employees and of high morale? Do
they support hiring and retaining
good employees?
Information on Performance:
• Are performance appraisals used
in a way that they can commu-
Volume 16, Number 4/2003
nicate anything about training
needs?
• What do internal agency reports
and reviews tell about training
needs?
• What do agency reports and
reviews tell about the need for
other interventions to support
training?
• What do trainees themselves say
about supports for and obstacles to
high performance? Who needs to
join in exploring this information
further?
• Do any external reviews or stud-
ies point to performance problems
that training should address?
• Does formal or informal feedback
from customers point to perfor-
mance problems that training
should address?
By exploring these questions and
others the model might suggest,
training staff will begin to move to-
ward a different way of functioning.
• As they redefine themselves as
learning and performance im-
provement experts, staff will cul-
tivate productive relationships
with others in the organization
who are critical to assessing needs,
supporting transfer, and affecting
organizational improvement.
• They will collect better informa-
tion on which to plan and deliver
training, as they respond to re-
quests for training by initiating
searching conversations with staff
at all organizational levels and by
reviewing critical data and docu-
ments to reveal the precise needs
to be addressed.
• They will more effectively sup-
port transfer, actively promoting
the notions that all have an inter-
19
 est in discovering where obstacles
to transfer occur and that all can
contribute to solutions.
• They will promote a more realistic
view of training staff’s responsi-
bility for “making a difference.”
That responsibility will be more
limited, in that training will
not bear sole responsibility for
training outcomes. On the other
hand, it will be greater, in that
it will include responsibility for
helping others within the orga-
nization more effectively meet
their responsibilities. This no-
tion of shared responsibility will
make it easier for staff to ask the
hard evaluation questions—those
related to on-the-job behavior
change and client outcomes—de-
spite apprehension regarding
possible findings, because they
will understand that in learning
organizations, evaluation is best
used diagnostically rather than
punitively.
Functioning in this new way should
enable training staff to move toward
declaring with confidence, “Does
training make a difference? Yes.”
References
Benett, J.K., & O’Brien, M.J. (1994, June).
The 12 building blocks of the learning
organization. Training, 31, 41-48.
Broad, M.L., & Newstrom, J.W. (1992).
Transfer of training: Action-packed
strategies to assure high pay-off from
training investments. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Broadwell, M.M. (1991, November). The
training control room. VNU Business
Media, 28, 47-49.
Cherniss, C., & Goleman, D. (1998,
October). Bringing emotional intel-
ligence to the workplace. A technical
report issued by The Consortium for
20
Research on Emotional Intelligence
in Organizations, October 7, 1998.
Piscataway, NJ: Graduate School
of Applied Professional Psychology,
Rutgers University.
Colarelli, S.M., & Montei, M.S. (1996,
September). Some contextual influ-
ences on training utilization. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 32,
306-323.
Ford, J.R., & Weissbein, D.H. (1997).
Transfer of training: An updated
review and analysis. Performance Im-
provement Quarterly, 10(2), 22-41.
Ford, J.K., Quinones, M.A., Sego, D.J., &
Sorra, J.S. (1992, Autumn). Factors
affecting the opportunity to perform
trained tasks on the job. Personnel
Psychology, 45, 511-527.
Galagan, P. (1996, January). The diary of
a profession. Training and Develop-
ment, 50, 32-40.
Gast, M.F. (1992, July). Does training
make a difference? No! Training, 29,
84.
Gephart, M.A., Marsick, V.J., Van Buren,
M.E., Spiro, M.S., & Senge, P. (1996,
December). Learning organizations
come alive. Training & Development,
50, 34-45.
Gill, S.J. (1995, May). Shifting gears for
high performance. Training & Devel-
opment Journal, 49, 24-31.
Goldstein, I.L. (1993). Training in orga-
nizations: Needs assessment, develop-
ment and evaluation (3rd ed.). Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Gordon, J. (1991, August). Measuring
the “goodness” of training. Training,
28, 19-25.
Grace, P., & Straub, C. (1991, June). Man-
agers as training assets. Training &
Development, 45, 49-54.
Grider, D.T., Capps, C.J.C., & Toombs, L.A.
(1990). Business, 1, 20-24.
Kramlinger, T. (1992, July). Training’s
role in a learning organization. Train-
ing, 29, 46-50.
Marquardt, M. (2002). Building the learn-
ing organization: Mastering the 5 ele-
ments for corporate learning (2nd ed.).
Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Performance Improvement Quarterly
Marquardt, M., & Reynolds, A. (1994).
The global learning organization.
Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.
Nixon, B. (1995, February). Training’s
role in empowerment. People Man-
agement, 9, 36-38.
Patton, M.Q. (1997). Utilization-focused
evaluation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, J.
(1994). The learning company: A
strategy for sustainable development.
New York: McGraw Hill.
Poertner, J. (2001). Linking child welfare
training and child outcomes. In Pro-
ceedings of the Fourth Annual National
Human Services Training Evaluation
Symposium (pp. 95-116). Berkeley, CA:
University of California.
Preskill, H., & Torres, R.T. (1999). Evalu-
ative enquiry for learning in organiza-
tions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rossett, A. (1996, April). Training & or-
ganization development: Separated at
birth? Training, 33, 53-57.
Rouiller, J.Z., & Goldstein, I.L. (1993).
The relationship between the organi-
zational transfer climate and positive
transfer of training. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 4, 377-390.
Rummler, G.A. (1996, April). In search of
the holy performance grail. Training
& Development, 50, 26-32.
Rummler, G.A. (1996, June). Redesigning
the organization and making it work.
CMA: the Management Accounting
Magazine, 70, 29-32.
Rummler, G.A. (1999). Transforming
organizations through human perfor-
mance technology. In H.D. Stolovitch
& E.J. Keeps (Eds.), Handbook of
human performance technology (2nd
ed., pp. 47-66). San Francisco: Jossey
Bass/Pfeiffer.
Rummler, G.A., & Brache, A.P. (1990).
Improving performance: How to
manage the white space on the orga-
nization chart. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Rummler, G.A., & Brache, A.P. (1995).
Improving performance: How to man-
age the white space on the organiza-
Volume 16, Number 4/2003
tion chart (2nd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2001).
The science of training: A decade of
progress. Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy, 52, 471-499.
Seipel, M.M.O. (1986). Staff training poli-
cies in public welfare agencies: A quest
for rationality. Journal of Continuing
Social Work Education, 4, 25-29.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The
art and practice of the learning orga-
nization. New York: Doubleday.
Stolovitch, H.D. (2000, April). Human
performance technology: Research
and theory to practice. Performance
Improvement, 39, 7-16.
Stolovitch, H.D., & Keeps, E.J. (Eds.).
(1999). Handbook of human perfor-
mance technology (2nd ed). San Fran-
cisco: Jossey Bass/Pfeiffer.
Stolovitch, H.D., & Keeps, E.J. (2002,
June). Stop wasting money on
training. Performance Xpress: In-
ternational Society for Performance
Improvement Newsletter. Accessed on
the World Wide Web on 4/23/2003 at
http://www.performancexpress.org/
0206/mainframe0206.html
Thomas, S.L. (1997, Winter). Performance
appraisals: Any use for training? Busi-
ness Forum, 22, 29-32.
U.S. Coast Guard (1994). Commandant
instruction 1500.23: U.S. Coast Guard
philosophy on training, education, and
development. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Transportation, U.S.
Coast Guard.
Van Tiem, D.M., Moseley, J.L., & Dess-
inger, J.C. (2000). Fundamentals
of performance technology: A guide
to improving people, processes, and
performance. Silver Springs, MD: The
International Society for Performance
Improvement.
Watkins, K.E., & Marsick, V.J. (Eds.).
(1996). In action: Creating the learn-
ing organization (Vol. 1). Alexandria,
VA: American Society for Training &
Development.
Wile, D. (1996). Why doers do. Perfor-
mance and Instruction, 35(2), 30-35.
21
LOIS WRIGHT, MSSW, Ed.D.,
is Director of Evaluation and
Education for the School of Social
Work/VISSTA at Virginia Com-
monwealth University. Her work
focuses on education, training, and
research in the area of child welfare
and evaluation of training. She has
a particular interest in improving
staff performance in public human
services organizations. Mailing
address: P.O. Box 842027, Rich-
mond, VA 23284-2027. E-mail:
lewright@vcu.edu

22 Performance Improvement Quarterly