Training Emphasis on Organizational Performance

Clearly Define the Objective of Training as the Improvement of
Individual and Organizational Performance; Make Training More
Market-Driven

Background

The Government Employees Training Act (GETA) of 1958 authorizes
agencies to manage their own training, determine their own training
needs, and select and fund training to meet those needs. The Volcker
Commission offered the following assessment of agency effectiveness in
exercising that authority:

[F]ederal training is suffering from an identity crisis.  Agencies are
not sure what they should train for (short-term or long-term), who
should get the lion's share of resources (entry level or senior level),
when employees need additional education (once a year or more often),
and whether mid-career education is of value. . . . Career paths are
poorly designed, executive succession is accidental and unplanned, and
real-time training for pressured managers is virtually nonexistent. At
both the career and presidential level, training is all-too-often ad hoc
and self-initiated.(1)

To strengthen training in government, the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) assumed a more active leadership role and, in 1992,
developed a series of human resource development policy initiatives
including requirements for comprehensive training needs assessment,
employee orientation, and management development.

In the high-performing organization, training is seen as an investment
in a strategic resource and thus is funded to the extent required for
achievement of organizational mission; these excellent organizations are
often called "learning organizations." The ideal training program is
designed to improve individual and organizational performance. Training
must be based on a careful needs assessment and rigorously evaluated to
ensure that it is cost-effective. Based on a training needs assessment,
one or more tools may be selected to help employees, individually or in
teams, develop the knowledge, skills, and abilities they need to improve
performance. Some of the more common learning methodologies include
coaching, counseling, on-the- job training, developmental job
assignments, computer-based instruction, job aids, expert systems,
independent study, and classroom instruction.

Need for Change

Training is not always seen primarily as a tool for improving
individual and organizational performance; GETA cites "increasing
economy and efficiency in the Government" as the purpose of training.
GETA places a series of limitations on use of training from non-
governmental sources, which results in regulations on how training is to
be managed. Limitations appropriate in 1958, when training was in its
infancy in both government and the private sector, are no longer
relevant. GETA requires that training be related to the official duties
of an employee, which has been interpreted by some to preclude
retraining and multi-skilling of government employees. Training is too
frequently ad hoc and employee-originated, and seldom linked to
strategic or human resource planning. Information for more strategic
management of training is generally not available.  Managers generally
are not able to determine the effectiveness of or the return on their
investment in training. Interagency training is frequently perceived by
agency managers as not responsive to their needs and too costly when
compared to other sources of training.

Many observers believe that training in the federal government is
inadequately funded; the Volcker Commission found that in 1989 the
government spent "about three-quarters of 1 percent of its payroll
dollars on civilian training, compared with 3 to 5 percent in the most
effective private firms."(2) Training is usually seen as a cost, not an
investment. Training costs are not generally included in cost estimates
for new systems or programs, and usually are not a part of the budget
process.  Training is too often a quick fix even though it may not be
the best solution to a performance problem or the best way to impart
knowledge about a regulation or requirement. Training is frequently
seen as something that happens only in the classroom, and, as a result,
other methods for improving performance such as job aids, expert
systems, on-the-job training, coaching, mentoring, developmental work
assignments, job redesign, and computer-based instruction are not
considered.

Cross References to Other NPR Accompanying Reports

Creating Quality Leadership and Management, QUAL02: Improve Government
Performance through Strategic and Quality Management; and QUAL03:
Strengthen the Corps of Senior Leaders.

Improving Regulatory Systems, REG10: Provide Better Training and
Incentives for Regulators.  Reengineering Through Information
Technology, IT13: Provide Training and Technical Assistance in
Information Technology to Federal Employees.

Rethinking Program Design, DES04: Commission Program Design Courses.

Transforming Organizational Structures, ORG01: Reduce the Costs and
Numbers of Positions Associated with Management Control Structures by
Half.

Endnotes

1. The National Commission on the Public Service, Leadership for
America: Rebuilding the Public Service (Washington, D.C., 1989), p.  43.

2. Ibid.