Why Don’t Organizations PayAttention to (and Use) Findingsfrom the Science of Training?

Eduardo Salas, Mary P. Kosarzycki

No one can dispute the importance that organizations place on training anddeveloping employees. In fact, some analysts estimate that organizations investmore than $50 billion annually on formal classroom training (Galvin, 2001) andspend three times that amount on informal training (on-the-job trainingand mentoring). Such a huge investment raises questions such as, “Is the train-ing effective?” and “Are organizations optimizing the delivery of training toensure the transfer of skills to the job?” Although the science of training couldhelp answer these questions, we repeatedly find that organizations do not incor-porate much of what we have learned about designing, delivering, implement-ing, and evaluating successful training. In this article, we consider reasons forthis situation. We review the contributions made by research, discuss commonmisconceptions about training, list challenges that must be overcome, and offersome remedies.

The Science

To determine the state of the science of learning, we reviewed the last fivetraining chapters that appeared in the Annual Review of Psychology (Goldstein,1980; Latham, 1988; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001; Tannenbaum & Yukl,1992; Wexley, 1984). We found that in the past decade, we have producedmore theories, models, guidelines, principles, empirical results, and reviews,and published more books and articles, training evaluations, and research incontext than in any of the preceding decades. Research has informed usabout the learner and the workplace context in which learning is appliedand has led us to develop better methods by which to deliver and evaluatetraining.

We know more about how learners acquire knowledge. Training successis a function of the learning that occurs as a product of complex cognitivechanges in an individual. In addition, a trainee’s personal characteristics (for

487HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 14, no. 4, Winter 2003Copyright © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

488 Salas, Kosarzycki

example, cognitive ability, practical intelligence, self-efficacy, goal-orientation,and training motivation) also influence training outcomes.

Research has also addressed training issues at the macrolevel. From asystemic perspective, we know that training is not an event but an ongoingexperience that occurs formally in classrooms, as well as informally during on-the-job encounters. The organization serves as the context for the proximaland distal training climates that also affect training success. Before an employeeeven enters a classroom, he or she has been subjected to a barrage of subtleand overt pretraining influences. We know that trainees actively scan theirenvironment for cues about how much the organization values training andwhat effect attending training will have on their personal outcomes. And whentraining is over and the trainee returns to the job, local workplace conditionsaffect whether the trainee is willing, or even able, to apply the learning.

In addition, research has provided us with better training tools, proce-dures, methods, and approaches. For example, knowledge of learner cogni-tions and information processing led researchers to formulate additionaltraining principles and to derive expanded instructional strategies. As a result,we know how to structure training content to optimize comprehension andlearning. We have also refined the steps of the organizational analysis process;developed methods for conducting cognitive task analyses to uncover relevantknowledge, skills, and abilities; and specified coping strategies that minimizebarriers to transfer of learning on the job.

The spread of technology in the 1990s meant that new training methodsbecame both feasible and economical. Research on multimedia led to the devel-opment of guidelines for presentation, interface design, and hypermedianavigation. In addition to making major contributions to the study of simulator-based training, military researchers developed team training methods, such ascross-training and team-coordination training. However, although distance-learning training programs are widely implemented, relatively little researchhas been conducted to determine how technology and learning interact(Kosarzycki, Salas, DeRouin, & Fiore, 2003).

Finally, research-based findings have changed how we evaluate training.New evaluation methods and tools (including online assessment) are available,along with an expanded measurement typology. Clearly, science-based researchhas supplied us with many training approaches, tools, and guidelines that canimprove the outcomes of training programs. So why do practitioners ignorethese findings?

The Challenges

We now present some possible reasons that organizations do not pay attentionto our research findings. We offer these reasons in the form of challenges toresearchers, senior practitioners, graduate students, and all others whoparticipate in the design and delivery of organizational training.

Why Organizations Ignore Science 489

Challenge 1: Organizations Hold Simplistic Views of Training. Ingeneral, organizations believe that training is a simple thing: an unskilledworker is sent to training and returns as a skilled worker. A related belief isthat anyone who has ever attended training is a qualified training expert. Inreality, of course, the situation is more complex. Training is a behavioral andcognitive event that must be structured to provide optimal results. Optimaltraining design requires an understanding of the influences and issues thatoccur before, during, and after training (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001).Appropriate and consistently applied training principles help ensure that train-ing is designed and delivered effectively.

Challenge 2: Organizations Hold Misconceptions About Training. Anumber of training misconceptions prevent organizations from incorporat-ing science-based findings (see Salas, Cannon-Bowers, Rhodenizer, &Bowers, 1999). One misconception is that telling a trainee how well he orshe performed on a training exercise is all the information that the employeeneeds to learn. In fact, all feedback is not equal. Useful feedback must bediagnostic, directing the trainee’s attention to whatever cognitive material isimportant and guiding the trainee on how to improve performance. A relatedmisconception is the emphasis on practice. As with feedback, not all prac-tice is equal. Mere exposure to a training task does not automatically lead totraining. Practice promotes learning most effectively when it is guided, withprogress being measured and appropriate feedback being given to thetrainee.

Other training misconceptions exist as well. We note that belief in thesemisconceptions may partially explain why practitioners are reluctant torecognize the value of science-based research findings. Taken together, thesemisconceptions prevent practitioners from critically examining how the scienceof training can improve their training programs.

Challenge 3: We Do Not Do a Good Job of Translating Our ResearchFindings. In much of our writing, we researchers convey the practical impli-cations of our findings in the form of broad statements. The underlyingassumption is that interested practitioners can easily derive specific proce-dures from our general conclusions. However, practitioners may prefer bul-leted lists composed of detailed guidelines that serve as an implementationchecklist.

Challenge 4: Our Findings Are Not Accessible to Organizations. Psy-chologists stay abreast of current research by attending conferences andreading journals. However, those journals are marketed to psychologistsand researchers, and are available on-line mainly through databases acces-sible to educational institutions. Many executives, HR executives, and train-ers have never heard of these journals, do not know how to conduct aliterature search, and do not have access to the databases we routinelyaccess. In short, we do not do a very good job of marketing our researchfindings.

490 Salas, Kosarzycki

The Solutions

We offer a few suggestions for remedying this situation First, though, we needto acknowledge that the science of training is not affecting the design anddelivery of training in organizations and that something needs to be done. Weknow a lot about good training, and these findings should be used to benefitorganizations.

Next, we must consider how to reach the practitioner audience. Oneway is to publish in outlets with which practitioners are familiar. For exam-ple, in addition to submitting research to targeted trade magazines such asASTD’s T�D magazine, we must also submit articles to the Harvard BusinessReview and promote our findings in Business Week and the Wall Street Jour-nal. These premier publications are read by individuals at various hierarchi-cal levels within organizations. Before submitting our articles, we mustreview them and rewrite them in business English, avoiding scientific jargon,so that readers will not find it difficult to understand the articles. Wemust also show how training results can contribute to the business. That is,training can improve the bottom line and provide a positive return oninvestment.

And while it is important for us to make our work intelligible to thereader, we must encourage reciprocity. Whenever possible, our articles shouldconclude with a few statements inviting the readers to respond with their com-ments, for example, about the feasibility of the recommendations or about thedegree to which the advice is practical. Reciprocity between practitioners andresearchers is necessary if our research will be able to solve organizationalproblems. We hope this article initiates a lively dialogue about the gap betweenresearch and practice.

References

Galvin, T. (2001, October). Industry report 2001. Training. Available on-line: http://209.11.43.229/training/images/pdf/2001_industry_report.pdf.

Goldstein, I. L. (1980). Training in work organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 229–272.Kosarzycki, M. P., Salas, E., DeRouin, R., & Fiore, S. M. (2003). Distance learning in organiza-

tions: A review and assessment of future needs. In D. Stone (Ed.), Advances in human perfor-mance and cognitive engineering research (pp. 69–98). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Latham, G. P. (1988). Human resource training and development. Annual Review of Psychology,39, 545–582.

Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. AnnualReview of Psychology, 52, 471–499.

Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Rhodenizer, L., & Bowers, C. A. (1999). Training in organiza-tions: Myths, misconceptions, and mistaken assumptions. Personnel and Human ResourcesManagement, 17, 123–161.

Tannenbaum, S. I., & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in work organizations. AnnualReview of Psychology, 43, 399–441.

Wexley, K. N. (1984). Personnel training. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 519–551.

Eduardo Salas is professor of psychology and program director of the HumanSystems Integration Department of the Institute for Simulation and Training at theUniversity of Central Florida.

Mary P. Kosarzycki is a doctoral student in industrial and organizational psychologyand graduate research assistant at the Institute for Simulation and Training at theUniversity of Central Florida.

Why Organizations Ignore Science 491