Lately I've been seeing a lot of business networking discussions about training evaluation and measurement. People are still looking for strategies. If you're truly looking for new methods, check out Robert O. Brinkerhoff 's success case method. Bob makes things practical and efficient. Cuts to the chase: does it work? what did the person do? can it be replicated by others?

However, I find it disheartening that after having watched this discussion unfold over 27 years, we still haven't addressed the age-old issue of training transfer. I have been a strong advocate for measurement and ROI over the years. I've even written several articles about it. At this point, I'm left with a question:

Why is it that the training function is the only corporate function that feels it has to justify it's existence? Of course, many corporations engaged in continuous improvement, six sigma, etc. are measuring everything they can, but I believe there is a psychological difference—a core assumption—that any human resources function is overhead and not profit producing, is therefore suspect and expendable.

This is so wrong-headed. If you have clear understanding that the performance of a corporation is wholly dependent on the performance of it's people, then an integrated human capital management function will drive the corporation directly. A fully-blown talent management system means that competence is tied to performance and managing performance is the job of line managers. You don't need "coaches" from the training department or "mentors"; you need line managers who understand that their responsibility is to ensure that the people who work for them are able to—and do perform. Social networking, peer mentoring, performance support systems, job aids, line-manager-as-coach are all legitimate methods for ensuring performance, but ultimately, line managers bear the responsibility for the performance of his/her staff members.

Sometimes I think we make things way to complicated. We are too eager to try the latest techniques without looking at the bottom-line structure of the organization. Hold line managers responsible for the competence, capacity, and performance of their organizations. 

As a social scientist, I've been trained to believe—and do believe—that you can measure anything. I used to teach the concept of "operational definition" to new research students by explaining that you can even measure "love"—the issue is not about your ability to create a metric, but whether the person you love is using the same metric, e.g.: the following conversation with my ex-husband (note the "ex"):

Do you love me?
I take the garbage out don't I?

No, I mean do you love me?
I'm still here aren't I?

I'm Sicilian. I was raised in an extremely "high-touch" family. Performing personally distateful acts and longevity in the role are not metrics I use. I'm more interested in kisses, hugs, hand-holding, etc. (The "etc." is most important.)

So, measuring a manager's performance? How many of the manager's staff members are performing successfully against KPI's? Is the organization he/she manages delivering on its KPI's? These are pretty simple to measure; but, can you measure their "AQ"?

"AQ" is a wonderful concept developed by Carl Hiassen in one of his novels. It stands for "A-hole" Quotient. (I'm being as delicate as I can.) My point is that a manager may get folks to do what they're expected to do, but make them miserable. Miserable staff members ONLY do what they're expected to do, and then they'll find a way to get out of there as quickly as they can.

So we can measure their performance more easily than we can identify the fact that they are lousy managers. We can measure the thing that "matters" more easily than we can measure the thing that really matters.