Does Training Matter? Evidence from Performance Management Reforms

• Date: 01 May 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12331
• Author: Donald P. Moynihan,Alexander Kroll
• Published date: 01 May 2015

Alexander Kroll is assistant profes-

sor of public administration at Florida

International University. His research inter-

ests are in studying organizational effective-

ness, employee behavior, and particularly

the roles of performance information,

strategy, leadership, and motivation.

E-mail: akroll@f‌i u.edu

Donald P. Moynihan is professor in

the La Follette School of Public Affairs,

University of Wisconsin–Madison. He is

fellow of the National Academy of Public

Administration, author of

The Dynamics of

Performance Management: Constructing

Information and Reform

(Georgetown

University Press, 2008), and winner of the

ASPA/NASPAA Distinguished Research

Award.

E-mail: dmoynihan@lafollette.wisc.edu

Does Training Matter? Evidence from Performance Management Reforms 411

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 75, Iss. 3, pp. 411–420. © 2015 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12331.

accusations of inattentiveness to undesirable employee

behavior or to punish employees under suspicion of

wrongdoing.  is kind includes training on racial

sensitivity, sexual harassment, or ethics.

 ere is a middle-ground view, which is that train-

ing has high potential value but is of‌f ered too little or

in a manner that rarely helps

employees. U.S. federal employ-

ees ranked attention to training

lower than almost any other

aspect of their work experience.

One in two employees believed

that their training needs had

been assessed or were satisf‌i ed

with the training they received

(OPM 2014, 29, 32). As budget cuts squeeze spend-

ing, employee frustration grows. Among those who

of‌f er training for federal employees whom we inter-

viewed for this article, there was a uniform belief that

resources available for training have declined as federal

spending has come under pressure.1 One trainer put

it like this: “From a department perspective, there are

real needs, but training is a want, not a need.”

Abstract: Training is much discussed but rarely studied in public management. Using multiple waves of survey data,

the authors examine the ef‌f ects of training on the implementation of performance management reforms in the U.S.

federal government, asking whether those exposed to training are more likely to use performance data and strategic

goals when making decisions. Training is positively associated with reform implementation, but there is little evidence

that this association can be explained by the development of specif‌i c capacities to overcome performance management

challenges.  e f‌i ndings of‌f er two implications for the practice and study of training.  e authors propose that training

is likely to succeed if it is designed and funded to close specif‌i c capacity gaps needed for successful reform implementa-

tion. However, it is also necessary to better understand alternative causal mechanisms by which training facilitates

reform implementation, such as explaining and justifying reforms.

Practitioner Points

• Training can facilitate the implementation of new policies by providing information about the policies,

justifying why they are needed, and giving employees the capacity to put the new policies in place.

• Using training to build specif‌i c employee capacities is more complex, resource intensive, and rare than using

training to provide information and justify reforms.

• Ef‌f ective training in government requires not just more resources but also better understanding of the

specif‌i c capacities needed and how to create them—research can help by identifying the most signif‌i cant

capacity gaps in policy implementation.

Does Training Matter? Evidence from Performance

Management Reforms

Alexander Kroll

Florida International University

Donald P. Moynihan

University of Wisconsin–Madison

Training occupies a paradoxical place in man-

agement theory and practice. We ask it to do

great things even as we are cynical about its

capacity to do so. Training is a default solution to all

manner of managerial challenges ranging from ethical

problems and rule violations to employees acquiring

skills. It is credited with communicating organiza-

tional norms and new ideas and

reinforcing organizational cul-

ture.  is optimistic account of

training assumes that individual

preferences and capacities are

mutable and subject to external

inf‌l uence.

 e pessimistic counternarra-

tive is that training does little.  is view is held

by anyone who has counted the minutes during a

mandated training session, worried about taking time

away from actual work and yearning to check e-mail.

Pessimists say that training is just a symbolic or well-

intended ef‌f ort to deal with problems too fundamen-

tal to be solved by a daylong session with slides and

easel boards. Managers may use training to ward of‌f

Training is a default solution

to all manner of managerial

challenges ranging from ethical

problems and rule violations to

employees acquiring skills.