One major reason for training employees is to ensure longevity and attainment of future goals. For the employees, training is a platform that encourages them to become productive in the workplace. It is also a platform for solving various employee problems and attaining departmental and organizational goals. In the King’s case study, it can be assumed that the company has not considered the following training needs:
- The need to minimize employee unrest in the company.
- The need to increase productivity and reduce company wastage.
- Creating cohesion and positive relations among departments.
The King company faces problems of poor performance measurement, biased benefits and compensation structure, and general employee unrest. In response to these problems, Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training are applied to determine the effectiveness of the training. The first level is the employees’ reaction to the training. How the workers respond to the training is an instrumental factor in determining whether they are in agreement with the content of training (Smidt, Balandin, Sigafoos, & Reed, 2009). One major issue at the company is that of employee benefits and compensation. The reaction of the employees on this issue was imperative to ensure that there was an understanding among all the employees when undergoing training. Similarly, it was imperative for the company to come up with performance measurement objectives so that the employees would know the qualification scheme for every bonus payment.
The second level in evaluating training that the King company can apply is learning. It is important for the company to come up with specific training goals and objectives for training. For instance, an ideal objective of the training would be: “How to measure employee performance”. Later, the success of such a goal would be determined through the employees’ reaction when bonuses are awarded to some employees and not to others. It is through these aims and objectives that the human resource managers would be able to determine whether the deliverables for the training are met or not. However, it is impossible to set goals and objectives with zero input from those who are supposed to make the goals a reality. It is the case with Honduras designing compensation and benefits scheme for the King’s employees. In effect, training should encompass ideas of the participants to encourage affirmative action in learning.
The third evaluation level is employee behavior. One way of evaluating the success of any training is through analyzing the positive change in the behavior of the employees after the training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2005). Thus, if the workers demonstrate the keenness to apply the information given to them during training, then they are said to have learned. For instance, when employees take in the content of training positively, they can exercise the influence through a change in behavior. Nonetheless, they may also change their behavior negatively if their positive change is not acknowledged. In the case of King, Honduras, the former human resource director, exercised management favoritism towards Duga and her subordinates. Honduras’ behavior drove other HR members to feel less acknowledged and unappreciated, as they received minimal feedback on goal progress. As a result, they were demotivated and collaborated less with each other, thereby causing minimal cooperation across other human resource functional areas.
Last is the use of results. The results are the consequences attained due to training. In this case, the management can identify the critical reactions and results that the company has enjoyed after training (Foreman, 2008). For instance, one main result would be the impact of the training on the enterprise, as well as its staff. One primary goal of Kings, for example, was to ensure there were a minimal waste and high productivity at the workplace. Thus, the training would be able to show whether there was better production, and how much waste was reduced. In the case of King, grumbling and complaining employees showed a dissatisfaction result. This attitude was a clear indication of poor training outcomes.
Foreman, S. M. (2008). Kirkpatrick model: Training evaluation practices in the pharmaceutical industry. (Order No. 3304485, Capella University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 116n/a.
Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2005). Transferring learning to behavior: using the four levels to improve performance. Williston, VT: BerrettKoehler Publishers.
Smidt, A., Balandin, S., Sigafoos, J., & Reed, V. A. (2009). The Kirkpatrick model: A useful tool for evaluating training outcomes. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 34(3), 266-274. Web.