Why Are We Still Using Training to Check Boxes?

Seriously? What's the point?

I mean, I know the point... To ensure that employees know something so that they can be compliant or act in a certain way. Also, so the organization can avoide litigation. But, there are a few fundamental issues with that theory. When we require training only to "check the box," it generally:

1. Doesn't translate to actual on the job behavior (i.e. learning doesn't happen)
2. Wastes time, money and resources

There is a better way.

If training exists to check a box, we are essentially writing off effectiveness. We are sending the message that we don't care about the quality, the impact, or whether learning occurs. We are elevating the need to avoid litigation and adhere to requirements above the real reason we are providing the training, so people actually learn the behaviors or rules we need them to follow. But, I think we can win in all those areas (high quality, avoid litigation and learning) and do it well.

PROBLEM #1: Check the box training doesn't translate to actual on the job behavior. Here's a recent example. Training related to Diversity and Inclusion is a hot topic. I don't argue with the importance of raising awareness, education, and changing behaviors around this topic. But I do argue with "check the box" diversity training approach. I took one required e-learning last fall about unconscious bias and it made me think, for a bit. But the forgetting curve, real life distractions, and the pull of daily habits are a powerful combination. Sheepishly, I admit that my memory of the one training to reset my habits months ago is pretty fuzzy. I can't say that my daily behavior has changed. What to do?

SOLUTION: Weave the necessary learning into everyday life. A few years ago, my organization implemented a "phishing" education campaign to stop employees from clicking on potentially harmful emails. The campaign started with a required e-learning followed by a week dedicated to learning about cyber security. Each day there was some type of learning game complete with prizes (think "spot the incorrect actions" pictures, trivia, and more).

But, the really brilliant part is what happened after all of the "programmed" activities. The IT department put a "phishing" button at the top of our email screens. As part of the training, we were instructed to click on that button if we received a suspicious email and it would be reported to the security team to check it out. Periodically, the team sent a fake phishing email. If we reported the fake email via the phishing button, we were rewarded with a "Congratulations and thanks for keeping us safe!" pop-up. But if we clicked the link... well... I did that once. Not only did I get instant feedback that I messed up, but I also received a series of emails for the next 3 months reminding me how to watch for a phishing email. I haven't clicked on another fake email since!

How can you move compliance training away from a one and done to a campaign that continues in everyday life?

Yes, this approach takes more time and effort. How important is it that your people really learn and apply the information?

By the way, I don't want miss following up on my first example. There are efforts underway to weave diversity learning efforts into the greater organization more consistently.

PROBLEM #2: Check the box training wastes time, money and resources. Here's an example that might sound familiar. My husband works in finance. He has held the same type of job in the same industry for over 20 years. Every two years, he completes 24 hours of obligatory compliance training to ensure he still knows the rules. Guess what? He knows them. So, he spends 24 hours clicking through e-learnings just to fulfill the requirement (a.k.a. check the boxes).

The part of my brain that is wired for efficiency wants to scream as I begin adding up the cost vs. outcome ratio. There is the time lost (he could be doing other things) plus the dollars spent on his salary, the salaries of everyone who created the e-learnings, the time to coordinate the training by a central function, etc. etc.

I'm pretty confident you have had a similar experience. It's that common.

SOLUTION: Create a "prove it first" design. If my husband really knows the information, he shouldn't need the 24 hours of training every other year. What if he could somehow "prove" that he knows and is comfortable with the information before he clicks into a 24 hour commitment? What might that look like?

I took several hours of language courses and participated in language camps during high school. When I enrolled in college, I took a placement exam to determine my level of fluency. The result? I tested out of, and receive automatic credit for, certain lower level courses. That meant I was able to earn a language major in the same number of hours it normally took to earn a minor. My previous knowledge and experiences saved me time and money. What a great way to reward those who are doing the work to learn!

What if we took a simliar approach with compliance training? I'm envisioning a comprehensive knowledge assessment that starts, not ends, the training process. If someone passes with flying colors and we are confident in their knowledge, he would be able to skip most (if not all) of the training hours. If he fails, then the 24 hours become mandatory.

If that isn't enough, consider knowledge combined with a performance component. Compliance errors are tracked in most industries. If data shows an employee continues to be in compliance year after year and she passes the knowledge assessment, perhaps we save the time and resources of everyone involved and consider that audit requirement met, not by a "check the box" but by data demonstrating knowledge and behavior on the job.

I realize there are many changes that would need to be made to workloads, auditing structures, assumptions, theories of thought and more in order for these solutions to become reality across the board. But why not start in your own corner of the world? Change starts small and grows through adoption and time.

Can we really afford to just keep checking boxes?