Trainer self‐loathing?

• Author: David M. Kopp
• Published date: 01 September 2006
• Date: 01 September 2006
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1179

Trainer Self-Loathing?

David M. Kopp

In this article, I address the often lingering and multifaceted issues of trainer

accountability, specifically, transfer of training. The significance of transfer

came to light for me recently during my research in progress with certified

diabetes educators. Because certified diabetes educators lack performance

appraisal systems that memorialize their training effectiveness vis-à-vis

diabetes education to the patient, undocumented feckless transfer of training

here may not only equate to inefficiencies within the clinic but also may be

linked to poor health outcomes and shorter life spans for the trainee-patient.

Groucho Marx once quipped that he would never belong to any club that would

have him as a member; today, if he were a trainer, he might reword that to say

that he would never belong to any organization that would hold him account-

able for training transfer. However, Groucho need not have worried because we

in human resource development (HRD) routinely discuss, encourage, and oth-

erwise espouse interest in effective training, including the ever-elusive return on

investment. Yet, we regularly stop short of holding the trainer accountable for

training transfer or lack thereof—a fundamental “Emperor’s-no-clothes” mind-

set in the training evaluation world, in my opinion. Corroborating this assertion

is the fact that the construct of transfer is rarely, if ever, explicitly incorporated

into performance appraisals used on trainers. Although my research study has

just begun in this area using the context of diabetes education, I present the topic

of training transfer here to encourage open discourse and debate.

Conceptual Foundations

Although the effectiveness and, indeed, the value of performance appraisals

have been historically (Deming, 1986; Derven, 1990; Scholtes, 1993) and

recently (Coens & Jenkins, 2000; Coutts & Schneider, 2004) questioned,

performance-appraisal instruments themselves can be part of a well-designed

351

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 17, no. 3, Fall 2006 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.1179 351