Indian

Management
Studies Journal

A Stakeholder Based Approach to

Manage the Training Process
Aman Singal
Research Scholar, School of Management Studies. Punjabi University. Patiala
Abstract

Many organizations try to use commonly available training evaluation techniques,

such as the Kirk Patrick model or the Phillips return on investment (ROI) approach, to
ensure that their training process is effective. These evaluation methods, however, are
difficult to implement, historical in nature and do not help managers take day-to-day tactical
decisions.
This article explores the literature that supports the application of the stakeholder
theory to the management of the training process. The author reviews the literature covering
commonly encountered management problems of each step in the training process. The
author then covers the literature and some case studies that point to how a stakeholder
focus can help solve or avoid such problems.

Survey evidence from the UK and the USA suggests that over 90 per cent
of firms engage in some forms of development activities for managers (Constable,
1988; Loo, 1991; Saari et al., 1988). In 2000, U.S. organizations with 100 or more
employees budgeted to spend $54 billion on formal training (Staff, 2000). These
organizations are understandably

keen on ensuring that all this money and effort is

being put to good use in the form of highly effective training programs.
Many organizations

try to measure training

effectiveness

its fmancial impact or return on investment (ROI) (phillips,

in terms of

1997). According to

Atkinson et al. (1997), some common reasons for using financial tools for measuring
performance

are that these measures are :

Generally regarded as reliable and consistent, thereby giving a solid

foundation for developing reward and accountability structures.
Mesh with the primary objective of creating profits for owners, thereby
giving a performance measurement focus consistent with organizational
objectives.
However, even with the development of sophisticated tools for evaluating
training programs using the Kirkpatrick 4-level evaluation approach (Kirkpatrick,
1975), or the Phillips (1997) ROI model, there are some shortcomingsof following this
approach to the training process :
The evaluation is hard to do and rarely gets beyond the famous smiles test
or capturing trainee reaction immediately after training (Nickols, 2005).
Evaluation happens on historical data and does not always help predict the
future requirements (Atkinson et aI., 1997).
The various measures of evaluating training used do not help drive
accountability in the training process (Robinson and Robinson, 1989). The
HR department is held accountable for its activity and not for its results
and there is a lack of identified management responsibility for result. No
one person or group of people accepts accountability for ensuring that the
skill taught will be used on the job.
Similarly, any evaluation results in the form of a financial number (ROI) or
trainee reaction do not help the management take day-to-day tactical
decisions about training. They only indicate if there is a problem and do
not point the management to a solution.
For example, the study carried out by Brancato (1995) concluded: "There's
a growing concern that financial measures are inadequate tools for strategic decisionmaking."
Atkinson et al. (1997) assert that financial performance measures are derived
from accounting systems that generate and communicate financial information to
support the contractual relationships and the capital markets that result from
separating owners and managers in the modem corporation. These accounting
systems were designed with the priority of consistency and hardness - attributes
needed to instantly compare firms and evaluate a firm's behaviour over time. These
systems were not designed to communicate decision-relevant information to people
inside the organization. Some complaints with conventional fmancial information are
that it ignores important issues like customer satisfaction; cannot predict because
it is based on historical cost; and provides little or no basis to judge the effectiveness
of processes like personnel relations systems.
The biggest problem with the approach of improving training effectiveness

purely through detailed evaluation of training results is brought out by Atkinson

et al. (1997) as managing by focusing on the actual shareholder wealth created,
for example, profits, is comparable to a coach who is trying to improve the
performance of his team and limits himself to studying the fmal score of the team's
games or to a race car driver who confines her attention solely to road speed
during a race.
It is clear from the above discussion that although there are tools available
for measuring and evaluating training effectiveness (see Nickols, 2005, for the
difference between measuring and evaluation), those tools do not necessarily lend
themselves to providing a solution of making training programs more effective. What
is required is a management model that helps coordinate, monitor and give operational
guidance at every step of the training process to ensure that the output of the
process is effective.
In this article, we look at a stakeholder based approach to managing the
training precess as a whole and see how it can potentially solve the problems listed
above.
This article does not try to criticize the various evaluation tools like the
Kirkpatrick4-levelevaluation(Kirkpatrick,1975)or the ROI model (phillips, 1997),but
tries to present a model where these tools can be used more effectively.

A stakeholder is a person or group with an interest in seeing an endeavour

succeed and without whose support the endeavour would fail. The essence of
stakeholder theory is that all organizations-profit, non-profit, public, and privateserve and depend on multiple constituencies (e.g., customers, employees, and
investors). One of management's chief obligations is to integrate and balance the
needs and interests of these constituencies or stakeholders (Nickols, 2005). The
stakeholder theory identifies and models the groups which are stakeholders of a
corporation, and both describe and recommend methods by which management can
give due regard to the interests of those groups (Freeman, 1984).
Barnard (1947) used the term 'members' to refer to those groups without
which the organization could not operate. He pointed out that the organization
depends on the contributions made by these members-that it is from these
contributions the organization fashions whatever products and services it can offer.
Further, Barnard indicated that there is a dynamic balance between these contributions
and the inducements necessary to obtain them. Thus, the theory of organizational
equilibrium was articulated in terms of a dynamic and continuing balance of
contributions and inducements to and from various member groups. This is known

as the "Barnard-Simon theory of organizational equilibrium"(March

& Simon, 1958).

As per Nickols (2005), the essence of the contributions-inducements

schema

is that the various participants or stakeholders must perceive value in the exchange.
He asserts that inducements must be seen as having at least equal or greater value
than contributions. From the stakeholders' perspective, what they receive is of equal
or greater

value to them than what they contribute.

From the organization's

perspective, what it receives in the way of contributions is of equal or greater value

than what it offers in the way of inducements. That is why all members of the
organization

are in the relationship.

If that relationship

does not offer them

inducements of equal or greater value to them than the contributions

expected of

them, they leave the relationship.

Firm-stakeholder

relationships

are best to be understood

in contractualist

terms, Le., as voluntary arrangements between 2 or more parties seeking mutual

benefit (Heugens & Oosterhout, 2002).
Neely et al. (2002), in developing their "Performance Prism," pointed out
that any look at stakeholders

must include stakeholder

contributions

as well as

stakeholder satisfaction (presumably, with their inducements).

In their view,
stakeholders put something in and take something out. This transaction view ofa
stakeholder is similar, if not identical, to the contributions-inducements

theory of

organizational membership and equilibrium (March & Simon, 1958).

Donaldson & Preston (1995) detail the stakeholder theory as a descriptive,
instrumental, normative and managerial theory.
In applying this theory to the problem of peI:formance management, Atkinson
et al. (1997) assert that this can be applied to other HR functions as well.
According to Nickols (2005), training is one such HR function where the
stakeholder theory can be successfully applied. It would cease to exist if it did not
have the support of its key constituency groups or stakeholders. Nickols says that
training must also strike a balance between and among the needs and interests of
these stakeholder groups. Training must achieve and maintain a continued dynamic
balance between the contributions

it receives from its stakeholder groups and the

inducements it provides in return, that is, the contributions

organization.
In subsequent sections, we explore the applicability

training makes to the

of the instrumental,

normative, and managerial constructs of this theory to the training process.

DRIVING AN EFFECTIVE
APPROACH

TRAINING

PROCESS

USING A STAKEHOLDER

model consisting of three interdependent phases - needs analysis, delivery and

evaluation (Taylor & O'Driscoll, 1998).
Nickols (2005) says that most trainers have an interest in seeing that the
training they develop and deliver is successful. Others want training to be successful,
too, including the managers who sponsor or fund the training, the managers who
manage the training department, and the trainees. He lists some examples of training
stakeholders as trainees, trainees' managers, funding managers, training developers,
instructors, training managers, training vendors, and the training community.
In cases where the training is expected to have a fairly direct and substantial effect
on some critical aspects of the organization's performance, senior managers and
executives are also important stakeholders. Nickols further says that there are even
situations in which the community as well as state and federal regulators become
stakeholders, for example, in the case of training nuclear power plant operators.
According to Nickols (2005), using a stakeholder-based approach needs
trainers to incorporate stakeholder requirements into the design, development, and
delivery of training and increasing stakeholder interest in the outcomes and in
evaluating those outcomes in ways that offer meaning, value, and relevance to all
of the stakeholders.
Not all stakeholders contribute at each step of the training process and not
every one has expectations at each step. Similarly,the contributions and expectations
of some stakeholders have a higher priority than those of others. Sometimes, the
expectations of different stakeholders may be conflicting and a compromise or
prioritization is required to ensure that the expectations of all stakeholders are
aligned (Heugens & Oosterhout, 2002). This alignment is essential to ensure training
effectiveness because, otherwise, it will not be possible to meet all expectations at
the same time.
The model of managing through a stakeholder approach can, thus, be
defined as consisting of the following steps :
1. IdentifY stakeholders at each step.
2 IdentifY their contributions and expectations.
3. Prioritize and align these contributions and expectations.
4. Clearly communicate these priorities and alignment/trade offs to the various
stakeholders so that everyone is aware of what they need to contribute and
what they can expect.
5. Implement checks/processes that help hold the stakeholders accountable
for their contributions.
In subsequent sections, we look at each step of the training process and
review the current literature around the prevalent practices and problems of each

step. We also refer to the literature that presents the stakeholder model as a solution
to solve these problems. Finally, we discuss some examples of who the stakeholders
are and what are their contributions and expectations in the training process.
When this set of contributions and expectations is viewed in contractual
terms where the various parties are held accountable for providing their share of
contributions by those who expect them (Heugens & Oosterhout, 2002), it becomes
clear how this model can be used for solving the problems of accountability and
management control direction listed earlier.

Training needs analysis is one of the fundamental prerequisites of an

effective training program (Tharenou, 1989; Moore & Dutton, 1978; Wexley, 1984).
The importance of analyzing training needs prior to conducting training has been
emphasized by many writers (see Burke and Day, 1986; Goldstein, 1986; Wexley,
1984). In their seminal contribution to the literature on training needs analysis,
McGehee and Thayer (1961) suggested that assessment of training needs involves
three types of analysis: organization, operational (task) and person analysis. For the
past thirty years, theoretical and empirical perspectives on the identification of
training needs within organizations have been based upon this tripartite framework
(Paul et aI., 1992). Organization analysis was initially conceptualized by McGehee
and Thayer as focusing on where in the organization training could be utilized,
based on the organization's goals, climate and efficiency indices. This has been
expanded by Goldstein (1986) to incorporate the identification of system-wide
issues, the climate for training within the organization, the availability of training
resources and external pressures (including economic, legal, political and social
factors). Operations or task analysis entails setting performance standards or
criteria, describing tasks to be completed, deriving optimal procedures for
performing those tasks and specifYing the requisite knowledge and skills for task
performance. Finally, person analysis serves to identifYpersonnel who need training,
via performance appraisals, proficiency testing and other methods of measuring
job performance (Goldstein, 1986; Herbert and Doverspike, 1990). Self-assessment
of training needs by managers has also been recommended by some authors (e.g.
Ford and Noe, 1987).
However, needs analysis is often based more on informal than more formal
systematic methods (Tharenou, 1989; Moore & Dutton, 1978; Stephen et aI., 1988).
In a survey conducted in the USA by Saari et al. (1988), only 27 per cent of
companies had procedures for determining the training and education needs of their
managers and even in these companies, the focus was predominantly on lower-level

managers. Similarly, a survey of European organizations by Holden (1991) showed

a high prevalence of ad hoc and informal TNA methods, such as requests from line
managers and employees themselves.
Lack of systematic analysis of training needs has been the strongest
criticism (Burke and Day, 1986; Hinrichs, 1976; Holden, 1991), since this may lead
to a focus on skills and knowledge which do not transfer to the work environment
(Goldstein and Gessner, 1988). In many cases, the failure of training to change
individual behaviour and contribute to improved organizational performance has
been attributed to weak or missing links between the content of training and the
actual needs and requirements of managerial personnel (Kubr and Prokopenko,
1989).
Very little empirical evidence exists on how to assess training needs, and
research is needed with respect to self-report methods (Goldstein & Gessner, 1988;
Latham, 1988).
One of the causes for insufficient TNA in organizations is the lack of
clarity on who is responsible for doing what. If the stakeholders in this step are
identified and informed about their responsibilities and expected benefits, a much
higher level of participation and interest can be obtained during this often
overlooked but key step'of the training process as brought out by Petridou and
Spathis (2001). They state that the involvement of training department experts and
of the candidate trainees. in the needs assessment helps build commitment to the
training effort.
Chiu et ai. (1999) give three approaches of TNA as used in various
organizations. These approaches essentially highlight the fact that the priorities of
different stakeholders may be given precedence in different organizations using each
of these approaches. The approaches are:
1. Supplier-lead or "pedagogical" approach (Delahaye, 1992) - This approach
is largely trainer-driven and authority-oriented coming from the vested
interests of trainers (Thompson, 1994).
2. Demand-lead approach (Thompson, 1994) - This is anticipatory in nature
intending to meet long-term organizational objectives (Snape et aI., 1994).
3. Trainee-centered or the "andragogical" approach (Delahaye, 1992) - This
is characterized by a bottom-up, self-development driven (e.g. performance,
promotion) emphasizing more on employees' needs and less on the business
outcome or work efficiency.
Chiu et ai. (1999) also point out that each of these approaches can become
biased with the interests of the lead stakeholders of the approach and, therefore,
careful stakeholdermanagementis necessaryto ensure a balancedtrainingneed analysis.

Courpasson and Livian (1993) give a useful case study of a large bank in
France where one of the largest training programs received very good trainee
reactions

and satisfaction

organizational

scores. However,

the program

failed to achieve

its

objectives because of a lack of up front analysis of who needed that

training and how that will translate into the expected results. Clearly, in this case,
the requirements

of a key stakeholder,

the organization,

was overlooked

in an

attempt to create a training program that was popular with trainees.

Table I gives examples of various stakeholders and their contributions

and

expectations in the TNA phase of the training process. This list is a generic example
and each organization
contributions

will have its own list of stakeholders

and expectations.

drive accountability

with their specific

It is important to recognize those stakeholders

and

to ensure effective management.

Table 1
Examples of Stakeholders' Contributions and Expectations in the TNA Phase of the
Training Process
Expectation

Contribution
Top Management
- Clearly define the mission and vision of
the company.

- Proposed training programs are aligned

with the company mission, vision, and

- Clearly define the business direction.

- Provide enough resources and support
required for conducting the training
programs resulting from TNA.

objectives.
- An estimate of the resources required is
made available.

Business Development and Client Executives

- A forecast of the capacity requirements.

- Deliverymanagersto incorporatecapacity
predictions in the training plans.

Human Resource Managers

- Create detailed job requirements, job

- Receive inputs from line managers on

descriptions,
and
performance
benchmarks to help identify person and

job requirements for specific types of

task level training needs.

in the TNA process.

tasks and the adoption of job definitions

Line Managers
- Contribute to "person level" TNA by
identifying who needs what kind of
training.

- Get the key training requirements of

their team incorporated in the training
agenda of the organization.

- Training needs = Standard performance.

- For example, the manager of a rapidly

- Actual performance (Mager and Pipe,

growing team will like to ensure that

adequate attention is paid to on-boarding

1970; Rummier and Brache, 1990).

- Contribute to the "task level" of need

trainings for new hires.

analysis by helping define the job

requirements of their departments.
Individuals

- Individuals contribute to the "person

level" of TNA by doing self and peer

- Advance in career.
- Improves skills.

appraisals.
- Provides feedback on existing training
programs they have attended in the past.
Training

Department

- Find out the objectives and expectations

of various stakeholders, prioritize and
align these objectives,and finally,prepare

- Get support and recognition from all

other stakeholders about the training
requirements of the organization.

and share the results of the TNA work

with other stakeholders.

After assessing an organization's training needs, the next step is to develop

and deliver those trainings. Developing training includes determining who will be the
audience for training, what content to cover, what methodology to use to deliver the
trainings and how to deal with other constraints to transfer of learning.
Vinnani and Seth (1985) state that every training and development program
must address certain vital issues :
1. Who participates in the program?
2.

Who are the trainers?

3.

What methods and techniques are to be used for training?

4.

What should be the level of training?

5.

What learning principles are needed?

6.

Where is the program conducted?

Tharenou

examination

(1997a)

states that there is a need to conduct a systematic

of the links between various job and personal factors, on the one

hand, and the training process, on the other, in order to determine which employees
should attend a specific kind of training and how the organization

will be more

advantaged. Studies have been conducted to investigate what causes an employee

to apply to attend training, using both a labour market approach (based on human
capital theory) and a psychological
training and work environment)

approach (based on employee attitudes towards

(Noe and Wilk, 1993; Tharenou,

and Spathis (2001) propose a classification

candidate trainees' participation

1997a). Petridou

model that can be used to determine

in human skills or technical training programs in

the public sector. The formulation

of the appropriate

take into account the trainees' personal and occupational

training program must also

differences,

in the context

of organization, job and person analysis (Scott, 1997; Tharenou, 1997a).

Training commonly focuses on adult learners. Knowles (1970) first articulated
the unique aspects that characterize adult learners in The Modem Practice of Adult
Education: Andragogy Versus Pedagogy. According to Knowles (1970), some of the
tenets suggested by adult learning
environment include :

theory

and implications

for the training

1. Adults differ widely in their learning styles and capacities. Most groups will
be mixed and benefit from a variety of visual, auditory, interactive, and selfdirected methodologies.

2 Adults want to learn practical information. Unlike children who are subject

3.

focused learners, adults are problem focused and seek to learn what can
be employed to remedy a situation.
Adults have experience to draw upon. There is much wisdom within every
mix of training participants. Involving participants in their own learning and
using the group's collective intelligence is to the facilitator's and everyone's
advantage.

4.

Adults juggle multiple priorities and are often voluntary students.

Instructional designers must be conscious of making quality use of their
time. If trainees don't perceive the experience as worthwhile, their attitude
toward training may be affected, and future involvement will be less likely.

5.

Adults want to be involved in learning. Generally speaking, one of the least

effective methodologies

to use with adult learners is the lecture.

According to Ford & Wroten (1984), a useful model for describing the
systematic development and interrelated components of a training program is based
on an instructional systems perspective (Goldstein,

1974; 1980). Ford and Wroten

state that this training model indicates that there should be a logical flow from the
initial determination
evaluation.

of training needs to program development

The training evaluation

and to training

data is then used to systematically

reassess

training needs for possible program redesign. A key characteristic of the instructional
system approach is the emphasis on the continuous use of evaluative feedback to

modify the existing training program. In other words, training is seen as an evolving
process which utilizes evaluative information to adapt the program so that it better
meets its stated objectives (Goldstein and Buxton, 1982). Ford and Wroten (1984)
also bring out the importance of content evaluation as an aspect of effective training
design and delivery.
Ford and Wroten state that the existing training literature fails to provide
adequate strategies for evaluating existing training programs in terms of the program's
content and its job relatedness. The training literature also fails to provide methods
for linking training evaluation to training needs reassessment and program redesign.
Arthur et ai. (2003) assert that another important factor is the methodology
used to deliver training programs. Wexley and Latham (2002) highlighted the need
to consider skill and task characteristics in determining the most effective training
method. However, there has been very little, if any, primary research directly assessing
these effects (Arthur et aI., 2003).
It is clear from the brief discussions above that several key stakeholders are
involved in this stage of the training process as well. For example, trainees, trainers,
subject matter experts, content developers, instructional designers, and line managers.
The contributions and expectations of some of these stakeholders, such as
trainees and trainers, are commonly acknowledged. Those of others like instructional
designers and content developers are not that well understood as explained by Ford
and Wroten (1984).
Courpasson and Livian (1993) present a case study from a large bank in
France where large and expensive training programs failed to meet their objectives
because they were not designed and implemented with the nature and expectations
of their stakeholders clearly articulated. They were designed to be generic using a
classic theoretical view of the nature of participants. This leads to the trainings not
translating into expected benefits for the organization and frustration on the part of
a heterogeneous and specialized set of participants.
This case study also gives an example of a training program designed and
conducted with explicit inputs from the people who are impacted by the skills being
covered in the training. This training is shown to be highly successful in meeting
stakeholder objectives.
The design and implementation

step of the training process can be well

managed and result in effective trainings if all the stakeholders and the key decision
makers like the training department managers, line managers, and top management
recognize the contributions and expectations of all the stakeholders involved and
drive accountability based on a common understanding of these contributions and
expectations.

Some examples of these stakeholders

contributions are given in Table 2.

and their expectations

and

Table 2
Examples

of Stakeholders'

Contributions

and Expectations

in the Design and

Implementation Phase of the Training Process

Expectation

Contribution
Top Management
- Provide support in terms of resources,
infrastructure & overal1training strategy.

- Training programs to be aligned with the

organization's goals and objectives.
- Trainers and trainees to act as change
agents.
- To retain goodwill in the market as a
place that provides growth opportunities
for its people.
- The company is able to adopt and use
advances in technology through training.
- To build a more efficient and highly
motivated team.

Trainees
- Participate in surveys and pilot programs
conducted to design and develop
trainings.

- Trainings are wel1designed with relevant

content to help trainees learn and grow

- Participants in the delivery of a training

program.

- Enough facilities and resources are

- Spend time and effort to attend the

- Get opportunities to apply the newly

learned knowledge and skills in their jobs.

programs, do prerequisite preparatory

work, complete assignments etc.
- Apply the knowledge and skill from
training on the jobs.

in current and future positions.

provided to them.

- The objective and content of training

matches their interest and requirements.
- Trainers are experts in the subject being
taught.
- Training develops adaptability among
workers for changing work procedures.
- Training ensures that workers are able to

Instructional

handle machinery safely.

Designers and Content Developers

- Take the results of TNA and design and

develop training content to meet the needs
of the organization.

- Receive clear training objectives and

guidance from the TNA phase.

Table 1 (Contd.)
- Perform further analysis of the audience

- Get support from the organization and

and the content to be taught to determine

recognitionof the importanceof their work.

the correct medium of deliveringa training

program given the organizational resource

- Receive constant support of subject

matter experts.

and time constraints.

- Feedback

- Work with subject matter experts to

develop and validate

the materials

from delivered

training

programs so that they can improve

content and delivery methods over time.

prepared.
Trainers
- Spend time and effort preparing,
conducting and following up on training

- Receive adequate time and resources to

programs.
- Act as change agents
organizational objectives.

- To be either experts in the subjects they

are teaching or to be trained adequately

to

drive

design and conduct training programs.

before they conduct training.

- Clarity on the specific objectives, and
goals of a training program.
- To have a clear training strategy and goals
at the organizational level.
- Get feedback from trainees and other
people affected by a training program on
the content and delivery of the program.
- Enough resources and buy-in from the
organization to conduct follow up
activities and refresher trainings.

The Kirkpatrick Model (TKM) has been the prime framework for training
evaluation from the 1950s to late 1980s. It focuses on four levels of evaluation:
reactions, learning, behaviour, and results (Kirkpatrick, 1975). TKM is widely known
and accepted, even if it is rarely fully implemented. After more than 40 years, the
reigning framework for evaluating training-the four-level Kirkpatrick model-rarely
gets beyond the first level : trainee reactions or the "smiles test" (Nickols, 2005).
Nickols (2005) further says that many believe that it is a taxonomy of M&B and
therefore, it cannot be implemented by itself (e.g., Alliger & Janak, 1989; Holton,
1996; Wang et al., 2002).
Detennining the financial ROI of training (Phillips, 1997) is sometimes known

as the fifth level of evaluation. In addition, there are those who suggest that it is
possible and desirable to go beyond TKM and ROI to assess societal effect (Watkins
et aI., 1998).
Wang & Wilcox (2006) bring out the importance of organizations to
conduct summative evaluation after systematic training. First, summative evaluation
connects all the phases of the training process, Analysis, Design, Development,
Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) (Anderson, 1993), with organizational
goals and objectives. It will not only justifY the training budget and human
resource development (HRD) investment but also validate implemented
interventions. More importantly, it demonstrates to the organization decision makers
the value of training interventions. Second, systematic summative evaluation may
discover the areas of training interventions that do not meet the stakeholders'
expectations. Such evaluation will certainly provide opportunities for future
improvement. Last, but not the least, summative evaluation may assist and support
future training and HRD investment. In today's competitive world, training and
HRD are frequently competing with all other functions for organizational resources.
Sound summative evaluation of systematic training demonstrates the accountability
of training and HRD functions and supports decision making regarding future
training investments (Wang and Wilcox, 2006).
However, summative evaluation has been experiencing difficulties and
challenges in research and practice areas of training (Wang & Wang, 2005). Recent
data from American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) showed that only
12.9% of the largest organizations have conducted any kind of training impact
evaluation(Sugrue & Rivera, 2005), the most important form of summativeevaluation.
Wang and Wilcox (2006) raise the question that if impact (summative) evaluation,
including retum-on-investment (ROI) measurement, is so important, why we still see
so few organizations actually conduct such evaluation in training reality?
Wang and Wilcox (2006) bring out a number of reasons for organizations
failing to conduct systematic evaluations. First, many training professionals either
do not believe in evaluation or do not possess the mind-set necessary to conduct
evaluation (Swanson, 2005). Others do not wish to evaluate their training programs
because of the lack of confidence in whether their programs add value to or have
impact on organizations (Spitzer, 1999). Wang and Wilcox also attribute lack of
evaluation in training to the lack of resources and expertise, as well as lack of an
organization culture that supports such efforts (Desimone et aI., 2002; Moller et aI.,
2000). Even for limited efforts in training evaluation, most are retrospective in nature
(Brown & Gerhardt, 2002; Wang & Wang, 2005). A study of a group of instructional
design practitioners indicated that 89.5% of those conduct end-of-course evaluation,

71% evaluate learning; however, only 44% use acceptable techniques for measuring
achievement. Yet merely 20% of those surveyed correctly identified methods for
results evaluation (Moller & Mallin, 1996). Brown and Gerhardt (2002) concluded
that companies expend even less effort in evaluating the instructional design process.
Nickols (2005) contends that these evaluation

methods and evaluation

tools are not implemented and used widely because current approaches to training
evaluation are primarily of interest to trainers but not to the many constituencies
served by training, trainers, and the training function. To these other constituencies,
current approaches to evaluating training are largely irrelevant. Adopting a different
approach to the evaluation of training, a stakeholder-based

approach can solve this

problem of irrelevance.
In a similar vein, Brinkerhoff (2003) further argued that evaluation of training
is a whole organization

strategy. Training should not be the object of evaluation.

Instead, what is needed is evaluation of how well organizations use training. This
requires focusing evaluation inquiry on the larger process of training as it is integrated
with performance management and includes those factors and actions that determine
whether training can create performance results. By proposing a success case
method, Brinkerhoff demonstrated that effective training impact should involve all
relevant stakeholders of a training program (Wang and Wilkox, 2006).
A stakeholder model of managing training evaluation when it is viewed as
a part of performance management also gets support from Atkinson et al. (1997).
Some examples of stakeholders

and their contributions

and expectations

in this

phase of the process are given in Table 3.

Table 3
Example of Stakeholder's Contributions and Expectations in the Evaluation Phase of
the Training Process.
Contribution

Expectation

Top Management
- Provide support and resources to conduct
training evaluations on an ongoing basis.

- To get information showing that resources

invested in training are optimally used.
- Tobe ableto calculatereturnon investments
made on setting up a training department.
- The trainers/training department to set
up an evaluation mechanism that enables
them to measure things such as gains in
productivity, reduction in costs, an
increase in market share etc.

Training Department
- Set up and execute the evaluation

- Receive support from top management,

mechanism
best suited for the
organization's information requirements

line managers and trainees in collecting

and to help improve training programs.

training programs immediately after a

and analyzing data that helps evaluate

training and over time.

- Share the findings of training evaluation

and incorporate them in future programs.

- Receive recognition and support for

training

programs

that

help

the

organization perform better.

Trainees
- Provide feedback to help improve training

provided to the training

department will be incorporated in
training programs.

- Feedback

programs.

and
- Their improved productivity
performance as a result of training will
be recognized and rewarded.

This article looks at the problem posed by the popular training evaluation
methods not providing effective inputs for managing the training process as a whole
on a day-to-day basis. It proposes a stakeholder-based approach to manage the
training process, which helps overcome these problems. The article reviews the
literature that covers the problems at each step of the training process and then
discusses ideas in support of a stakeholder-based approach as presented by various
authors. The article also gives some examples of stakeholders and their contributions
and expectations at each step of the training process.

References
Alliger, G M.; and Janak, E. A. (1989), "Kirkpatrick's Levels of Training Criteria: Thirty
Years Later," Personnel Psychology, 42(2), pp. 331-342.
Anderson, A. H. (1993), Successful Training Practice: A Manager's Guide to Personnel
Development, Cambridge, MA : Blackwell.
Arthur, w.; Bennett, W.; Edens, P. S.; and Bell, P. S. (2003), "Effectiveness of Training in
Organizations: A Meta-analysis of Design and Evaluation Features," Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(2), pp. 234-245.

Atkinson, A. A.; Waterhouse, 1. H.; and Wells, R. B. (1997), "A Stakeholder Approach to
Strategic Performance Measurement," Sloan Management Review, 38(3), pp. 25-37.
Barnard, C. (1947), The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge, MA : Harvard University
Press.
Brancato, C. K. (1995), New Corporate Performance Measures:

A Research Report,

Conference Board.
Brinkerhoff, R. O. (2003), The Success Case Method, San Francisco, CA : Berrett-Koehler
Publishers.
Brown, K. G; and Gerhardt, M. W. (2002), "Formative Evaluation: An Integrative Practice
Model and Case Study," Personnel Psychology. 55(4), pp. 951-984.
Burke, M. J.; and Day, R. R. (1986), "A Cumulative Study of the Effectiveness of
Managerial Training," Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), pp. 232-245.
Chiu, W.; Thompson, D.; Mak, W.; and Lo, K. L. (1999), "Re-thinking Training Needs
Analysis", Personnel Review, 28(1/2), pp. 77-90.
Constable, C. J. (1988), Developing the Competent Manager in a UK Context. Report for
the Manpower Services Commission, U.K.
Courpasson, D.; and Livian, Y. F. (1993), "Training for Strategic Change: Some Conditions
of Effectiveness : A Case in the Banking Sector in France," The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 4(2), pp. 465-479.
Delahaye, B. (1992), "A Theoretical Context of Management Development and Education,"
in Smith, B.J. (Ed.), Management Development in Australia (1-18), Sydney:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Desimone, R. L.; Werner, J. M.; and Harris, D. M. (2002), Human Resource Development,
Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Donaldson, T.; and Preston, L. E. (1995), "The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation:
Concepts, Evidence, and Implications," The Academy of Management Review,
20(1), pp. 65-91.
Ford, J. K.; and Noe, R. A. (1987), "Self-assessed Training Needs:

The Effects of

Attitudes toward Training, Managerial Level, and Function", Personnel Psychology,

40(1), pp. 39-53.
Ford, J. K.; and Wroten, S. P. (1984), "Introducing New Methods for Conducting Training
Evaluation and for Linking Training Evaluation to Program Redesign," Personnel
Psychology, 37(4), pp. 651-666.
Freeman, R. E. (1984), Strategic Management:
McGraw-HilI.

A Stakeholder Approach, New York:

Friedman, A. L.; and Miles, S. (2002), "Developing Stakeholder Theory," Journal of

Management Studies, 39(1), pp~ 1-21.

Goldstein,

Training:

I. L. (1974),

Program Development and Evaluation. Monterey

CA : Brooks/Cole.
Goldstein,

I. L. (1980), "Training in Work Organizations,"

Annual Review of Psychology.

31, pp. 229-272.

Goldstein, I. L. (1986), "Training in Organizations
Evaluation,"
Goldstein,

: Needs Assessment,

Pacific Grove, CA : Brooks/Cole

Publishing

Development

and

Co.

Human

I. L.; and Buxton, V. M. (1982), "Training and Human Performance,"

Performance and Productivity.

Goldstein,

I. L.; and Gessner,

M. J. (1988),

"Training

and Development

in Work

International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

Organizations,"
pp. 43-72.
Herbert,

GR.;

and Doverspike,

D. (1990),

"Performance

Appraisal

in the Training

A Review and Critique," Public Personnel Management,

Needs Analysis Process:

19(3), pp. 253-270.
Heugens, P. P.; and Oosterhout,
Evidence

H. J. (2002), "The Confines of Stakeholder Management:

from the Dutch

Manufacturing

Sector,"

Journal of Business Ethics,

40(4), pp. 387-403.

Hinrichs, J. R. (1976), "Personnel

Handbook of Industrial and Organizational

Training,"

Psychology, pp. 1-27.

Holden, L. (1991), "European

Trends in Training

and Development,

II

The International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 2(2), pp. 113-131.

Holton,

E. F. (1996),

"The Flawed

Four-level

Evaluation

Model,"

Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 7, pp. 5-21.

Kirkpatrick,
Knowles,

D. L. (1975), Evaluating Training Programs, Madison,

M. S. (1970),

"The Modem

Practice

Pedagogy," Broadway, New York:

of Adult Education:

The Association

WI : ASTD.
Andragogy

Versus

Press.

J. (1989), Diagnosing Management Training and Development

Kubr, M.; and Prokopenko,

Needs: Concepts and Techniques, Geneva:

Latham, G P. (1988), "Human Resource

International

Labour Organization.

Training and Development,"

Annual Review of

Psychology, 39(1), pp. 545-582.

Leat, M. l; and Lovell,
Conventional

M. J. (1997),

"Training

Needs Analysis:

Weaknesses

in the

Approach," Journal of European Industrial Training, 21(4), pp. 143-

153.
Loo, R. (1991), "Management

Training in Canadian Organisations,"

Journal of Management

Development, 10(5), pp. 60-72.

March, J. G; and Simon, H. A. (1958),

Organizations, New York:

Wiley.

McGehee, W.; and Thayer, P. W. (1961), Training in Business and Industry, New York:
Wiley.

Moller, L.; Benscoter, B.; and Rohrer-Murphy,

to Improve

Evaluative

Practices

L. (2000), "Utilizing Performance Technology

of Instructional

Designers,"

Performance

Improvement, 13( 1), pp. 84-95.

Moller, L.; and Mallin,

P. (1996),

"Evaluation

Practices

of Instructional

Designers

and

Supports and Barriers," Performance Improvement Quarterly, 9(4),

Organizational
pp. 82-92.

Moore, M. L.; and Dutton, P. (1978), "Training Needs Analysis:

Review and Critique",

The Academy of Management Review, 3(3), pp. 532-545.

Neely, A. D.; Adams, C.; and Kennerley, M. (2002), The Performance Prism, London :
Prentice-Hall

Financial Times.

Nickols, F. W. (2005), "Why a Stakeholder

Approach to Evaluating

Training," Advances

in Developing Human Resources, 7(1), p. 121.

Noe, R. A.; and Wilk, S. (1993), "Investigation
Participation

in Development

Activities,"

of the Factors that Influence

Employees

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2),

pp. 291-302.
Paul, M. P.; O'Driscoll,

J. T.;and

Practice in Management

Taylor, P. J. (1992), "Congruence

Training Needs Analysis",

Between Theory and

The International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 3(3), pp. 593-603.

Petridou, E. N.; and Spath is, C. T. (2001), "Designing Training Interventions:
Technical

Skills Training?",

Human or

International Journal of Training and Development,

5(3), pp. 185-195.

Phillips,

J. J. (1997),

Return on Investment in Training and Performance Improvement

Programs. Houston : Gulf Publishing Company.

Robinson, D. G; and Robinson, J. C. (1989), Trainingfor Impact, Jossey-Bass
Series, San Francisco

: Jossey-Bass

Management

Publishers.

RummIer, G A; and Brache, A P. (1990), Improving Performance, San Francisco,

CA :

Jossey-Bass.
Saari, L. M.; Johnson, T. R.; McLaughlin,
of Management

Training

S. D.; and Zimmerle, D. M. (1988), "A Survey

and Education

Practices

in US Companies",

Personnel

Psychology, 41(4), pp. 731-743.

Savage, G T.; Nix, T. w.; Whitehead, C. J.; and Blair, J. D. (1991), "Strategies for Assessing
and Managing

Organizational

Stakeholders",

Academy of Management Executive,

5(2), pp. 61-75.

Scott, W. (1997), "Personality

and Self-leadership",

Human Resources Management Review,

7(2), pp. 139-155.

Simon, H. A. (1957), "Administrative
Macmillan

Behavior", A Study of Decision, New York:

The

Company.

Snape, E.; Redman, T.; and Bamber, G J. (1994), Managing Managers:

Strategies and

Techniques for Human Resource Management. Oxford : Blackwell Business.

Spitzer, D. R. (1999), "Embracing Evaluation", Training, 36(6), pp. 42-47.
Staff, T. M. (2000),
sponsored

"Industry

Report

2000 : A Comprehensive

Analysis

of Employer-

States", Training Magazine, 37, pp. 10-45.

Training in the United

Stephen, E.; Mills, 0. E.; Pace, 0. E.; and Ralphs, L. (1988), "HRD in the Fortune 500",

Training and Development Journal, 42(1), pp. 26-32.

Sugrue,

8.; and Rivera,

R. J. (2005),

"ASTD

2005

State of the Industry

Report",

Alexandria, VA : ASTD.
a State of Mind", Advances in Developing Human

Swanson, R. A. (2005), "Evaluation,

Resources, 7(1), p. 16.

Taylor, P. J.; and O'Driscoll, 1. T. (1998), "A New Integrated Framework for Training Needs
Analysis",
Tharenou,

Human Resource Management Journal, 8(2), pp. 29-50.

P. (1989), "Management

: Managers'

Identified

Training Needs Analysis by Self-Report Questionnaire

Needs

and Preferred

Training

Academy of

Strategies",

Management Proceedings, pp. 137-141.

Tharenou, P. (1997a), "Organizational Job and Personnel Predictors of Employee Participation
Training and Development",

Applied Psychology:

An International Review, 46,

pp. 112-134.
Thompson,

D. (1994), Developing Managers for the New NHS, Essex:

Longman.

Virmani, B. R.; and Seth, P. (1985), Evaluating Management Training and Development,
New Delhi : Vision Books, p. 68.
Wang, 0. G.; Dou, Z.; and Li, N. (2002),
Investment

for HRD Interventions",

"A Systems Approach

to Measuring

Return on

Human Resource Development Quarterly,

13(2), pp. 203-224.

Wang, 0. G.; and Wang, J. (2005), "Human Resource

Development

Evaluation:

Emerging

Market, Barriers, and Theory Building", Advances in Developing Human Resources,

7(1), p. 22.
Wang, 0. G.; and Wilcox,. D. (2006),

"Training

Evaluation

: Knowing

More Than Is

Practiced", Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8(4), p. 528.

Watkins, R.; Leigh, D.; Foshay, R.; and Kaufman, R. (1998), "Kirkpatrick
and Continuous

Wexley,

Improvement

with a Community

Plus: Evaluation

Focus", Educational Technology

Research and Development, 46(4), pp. 90-96.

K. N. (1984), "Personnel Training", Annual Review of Psychology, 35( 1),
pp. 519-551.

Wexley, K. N.; and Latham, G. P. (2002), Developing and Training Human Resources in

Organizations, Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prantice-Hall.