Are Indian Companies Really Lagging in Training Compared to the US? Let's Discuss Why and How to Improve

I have inferred from some of my friends in the US who are currently working that training is not as effective as in India when compared to the US. What could be the factors leading to this, and how can we improve it? Can anyone shed light on this issue?

Dear Sandeep,

First, there is a confusion in your statement. It says that training is more effective in India than in the US. But your tone suggests questioning why training in India is not as effective as in the US. If your tone is correct, then my answer is...

In public sectors (Govt), many of them see training as mandatory. They allocate a certain percentage of employees' salaries for training as per ISO norms or their HR policy. However, they prioritize productivity over skill improvement. One might argue how they can achieve productivity without enhancing skills, but that's the situation. They fail to understand and listen.

The other sector is the private sector. These companies invest in training, yet employees perceive it as free and tend to focus more on enjoying the time and facilities rather than enhancing their skills.

On both these counts, you will observe that participants are not very interactive or inquisitive.

The above is based on my experiences. However, there could be exceptions.

Broadly, the reasons for the training not being very effective include lack of seriousness, disbelief in the practicality of what they learn apart from entertainment, and their attitudes, etc. Let us hear from the forum, thanks and regards,

KS Rao

09959129888

[Corporate Fokus](http://www.corporatefokus.com)

Dear Sandeep,

In India, not only training but HR itself is weak. In the year 2006, Mr. Mohan Das Pai of Infosys was transferred from finance to HR. Can you expect the other way round to happen (that he is transferred from HR to finance)? No way!

Training in India is not effective as HR or Training Managers do not know the benefits that training brings to them. In the larger context, their employers do not understand the benefits of training.

In every single training program like Communication Skills, Decision-Making skills, Customer Service, and so on, I emphasize the revenue leakage caused due to the lack of these skills.

By the way, about a year and a half ago, I wrote an article "Why Employee Training Fails?" It was published in Deccan Herald. You can click here <link updated to site home> to read that article.

Thanks,

Dinesh V Divekar

Dinesh V Divekar,

It is really a wonderful article. Training in India has been happening in a half-hearted manner, and it is bound to fail. How do we address the problem and resort to proper training?

Thanks,
B. Gayathri

Thank you, Mr. Rao and Mr. Dinesh, for your inputs. Sorry for the confusion. I actually meant why Indian companies lag behind in training. US companies spend a lot on training. What stops Indian companies from doing so? Is it allocating funds? Or do we have a different approach when it comes to training? The attrition rate is low in the US if we don't consider the recession period because somehow the organization succeeds in retaining its employees. However, in the case of India, the attrition rate is too high. US companies invest a lot in training and have an HR function. Training is essential in Indian companies because we are more focused on providing service to external clients, especially in sectors like IT.

Ensure there is a single line break between paragraphs.

Thank you for all the valuable inputs.

Basically, we can't compare our system to the US. Experience-wise and model-wise, we differ. Maximum failures can be attributed to imparting the same type of training. The follow-up and post-training implementation are the major differentiators. We tend to regard training as a short-term initiative and tend to conclude it as a failure in a very short span of time. If one is willing to take a long-term view, certainly results will be delivered. When it comes to any cost-cutting or saving initiatives, the axe falls first on training.

I can say that this argument is too generalized. I agree with Mr. Rao's view. Is it that training is not happening, or training is not effective? It could be industry-specific too.

I bet the Pharmaceutical Industry in India, where I belong to, trains its employees more intensely. Training and the effectiveness of training are both very serious matters in this industry. It might not be for any certification, but it is mandatory for the employees to be functional, even at the basic level. This is true for all Indian Pharmaceutical companies and also MNCs that are in India.

There could be a few more industries where training could be functioning as the backbone of the organizations.

Sandeep,

I would like to keep it simple and short. It is not because the training is mandatory or when cost savings come, the AXE is on training. The actual matter is we do not implement any sort of training evaluation method. I was lucky enough to work with 2 US companies. What they do is pretty simple but effective. After they conduct any training, they measure it. We DO NOT, and that is the problem.

I have tried to measure the training, and it took me nine months to measure a group of 10 people where I did not do anything but measure them. In India, we do not have a dedicated guy for measuring, and even if we have, we do not have the patience, and that is the root cause of all things.

Gabriel

Dear Sandeep,

My comments are as below:

Sandeep: - "Sorry for the confusion. I actually meant why Indian companies lag behind in training. US companies spend a lot on training."

Idea that training reduces the cost of operations or cost of non-training is far higher than the cost of training is yet to get into the heads of the leadership. I have an example wherein a top-notch textile exporter. Though they had a staff strength of 1500, they did not have an HR Dept! They asked me, 'Everybody has an HR Dept, now we need to have, will you be able to help us out'?

Sowmini: - Do not concentrate on just the top 500 or 1000 companies. Neither should you concentrate on just one industry. Let us remember what Aristotle said 2300 years ago - "One swallow does not make a summer." If you think of India as a whole, our record is very poor. Secondly, would you mind sharing the best practices of the Pharma industry?

Thanks,

Dinesh V Divekar

It's an owner-driven company that we are mostly used to, and people here want to see the monetary growth first and spend later. This is definitely not a sign of growth, but I, however, see a positive trend in the last few years. Employers are slowly starting to incorporate training, and this will take some time before we have it properly set.

Recruiters must have heard this frequently: "I want a guy who is already trained and preferably worked in a system like our company, so they need no training at all" :-)

Hi Sandeep,

The topic you have raised is quite interesting.

It is very true that one of the first things IT companies do to cut costs is to reduce training expenses, which are typically high. The training system in the US focuses more on thorough training and assessing the knowledge gained in the program before allowing recruits to enter the workforce. On the other hand, in India, the approach to training in IT companies seems to be more about rushing through the training to get recruits working quickly, as they aim to maximize profits. However, what they fail to realize is that well-trained recruits tend to be more efficient and ultimately bring in more revenue for the company over time.

I believe the situation can only improve when companies recognize the value of providing comprehensive training not only to new recruits but also to existing employees. It is crucial to emphasize to employees the importance of continuous learning, which can significantly benefit their careers in the industry.

That is my opinion as a trainer. I am interested in hearing others' perspectives.

Regards,

Poonam

Manager - Training Facilitation

Training Orbit

I have seen people, who I would call employees, saying, "Why do I need training? I'm doing well, so what is the point of getting trained?"

There are many reasons, as mentioned by others. The major ones are:

1. Improper need analysis for training.
2. Focus more on productivity rather than on improvement.
3. Plans that are either not related to productivity or where knowledge post-training is not being converted into skills.

After all, what a business needs is revenue, which even today is not measurably impacted by training. It is very hard to quantify the deliverables of training into numbers. Employers also believe that it leads to a loss of man-hours, resulting in decreased productivity.

Apart from these, the biggest barrier in training is participants' leniency towards training.

Regards

Hi,

Although we can list plenty of reasons, I have appended below a few that I feel are the most important:

Mainly due to the lack of the following:
1. Understanding the potentials of the employees
2. Identifying their training needs
3. Identifying proper training tools/faculties, etc.
4. Proper funding (because in India, training has been treated as an expense whereas it should have been treated as an investment)
5. Measuring the effectiveness of the training
6. Periodical and regular follow-up mechanisms

I hope these points help clarify the importance of addressing these factors in training and development initiatives.

Hi Dinesh,

I am a student of MBA Gen (1st Year) and plan to take HR as my major. I am looking forward to creating value in the organization I join with my knowledge of this partially tapped field of HR. My interest area lies in Training. Could you help me polish my skills and prepare myself for next year's final placements to secure a training profile?

I have noticed that people often have to compromise on their interests and enter the recruitment field at the beginning of their career. I don't want that. Can you please guide me on how to avoid this and pursue my interest in training?

Thank you.

Whether a two-day short training program will provide immediate effectiveness in employees is a question to consider. I believe that training acts as a booster rather than delivering direct benefits, making immediate effectiveness measurement a complex issue. However, focusing on the training requirements of employees is crucial; it is essential to concentrate on this aspect before initiating training.

S.R. Deshpande

Hi

Greetings

Problem is 3 dimensional- Management, trainer and participant; "80% of the problem we face is due to management/ leadership" - Juran –(He was not talking politics, but about industries and organization!) please think it over as most of the management/leadership does not directly get involved in selecting the courses, content of the course, participants selection, time frame, measurement of the effectiveness and useful over a period of time, growth of individual and organization due to particular course, etc - as rightly pointed out by the other participants in this discussion.- Most of the leadership has failed in this respect except for some lip service – management is only worried about the Bottom line

In any family, training/ guidance/learning is a continuous process needed for growth; our leaders miss the woods for the trees



Trainers and possible steps for improvement of the effectiveness

1) Methods of the trainers is generally systematic but follow up for feedback is absent in most of the cases - Hence I insist on the list of participants along with their contact numbers - I /members of my team ring them up and invite them for the training at the location and time specified, have a short discussion on what they want as well as their "carry away” that will be provided by us - Participants do come at the appointed time and are serious; We make the training enjoyable by making them participate so that they have 'hands on' experience of what we are teaching;

After a week I personally ring up and talk to the participants – their feedback helps the them to ‘revise, chew the cud' their thoughts as well as giving us inputs for our improvement

2) I introduced training for the first time in a factory - "Supervisory Development" - one of the participant (a foreman with 3 years shop floor experience) said that till the training he did not know the duties and responsibilities of a supervisor!!- he thanked us because it was new and he could apply whatever he had learned from the next day - their confidence in dealing with workmen increased after the training – there was a gain in T&D for the participants

3) Most of the soft skill topics are too generalized – we need specific topics that are needed tomorrow - like “Handling subordinates/workers/union”, “Handling boss/peer/team members” and not like Motivation, leadership – topics should address the ‘pain' being felt by the employees; Technical topics - experienced personnel handle them and this will be on par with US (Feel it is better than US because the resources we give our people is low when compared to US)

4) Professionalize the training- learning and development has not grown – it still follows school and college methods of teaching and the results are same as school and college. Most of the training should be designed so that it is applied the next day and should give lot of examples of the things learned by experience

5) Training is for changing the participants- incorporate what they can apply in their Homes, with their friends and close relatives, give earthy examples and not American/ Western/Japanese/Korean bookish examples

Participants and their reaction to training:

1) When I was asked to go for mandatory training, it was one day that I could rest / relax, enjoy the unexpected holiday - negative and stress causing factor was that pending work accumulates and was a pain producer

2) At the end of the day of training, I found it was something like having gone for a movie/ drama with low entertainment value – did not know how to apply the principles in professional life - this is from one who has worked with top Indian and MNC companies

3) Commitment and motivation of the participants for the program has to be seen before commenting on other factors – this varies from place to place and mostly it is apathetic

4) Online training and quiz at the end (For subjects like Safety, technical subjects and some soft skills) of the courses has to be started by professional trainers; clearing the quiz should be mandatory for promotion

HR department and their inputs:

f) Since training is mandatory, participants are from different departments to fill up the headcount – designing the course become generalized; Having participants from different departments when we will build interdepartmental teams (like finance for non finance executives) to implement what we learn in training is good

g) The “Returns on training” – exercise that pays back money to the organization has to be designed and incorporated in training.

h) Half a day/one day training (for hoodwinking/ satisfying the requirement of ISO) is something to be mulled over – unlearning old and learning new is not possible in these short time frame; Time frame is a serious matter

h) No. of participants in a course – depending on the course, time frame and participants, cost – some thing that has to be discussed among ourselves

A number of other factors has can be discussed / brainstormed on this - we have alumni of Institutes for training the trainers in this forum, other professional trainers - please contribute

Best Wishes for more improvements

K

Dear all,

Here are some differences:

- We think the training is more of an expense than an investment.
- We have surplus manual power rather than intellectual power.
- Absence of qualified trainers/training materials.
- No follow-up after the training.
- Improper assessment of training.
- Productive people are forgotten as their absence from work will disrupt production planning; instead, less useful individuals receive the training.
- Trainers are chosen not based on merit but due to connections with HR or higher-level officers.
- Due to LPG, many people have started training, but they themselves have not received any training.

Regards,
Nagaraj

Dear Sandeep,

In the US, training is an ongoing and continuous process and an important part of an employee's Key Result Area (KRA). However, in India, we also emphasize the same concept but primarily focus on training for service recovery. This means that training occurs mainly in response to instances such as failed audits or customer complaints.

Regards,
Sandhya

Problem with Training:

1. Something is wrong with the basic assumption: Most training programs are based on the assumption that training leads to learning. However, there may not always be a direct cause-and-effect relationship.

2. Assumption: Participants learn what the trainers teach, and learning is a simple function of the participants' capacity to learn and the trainers' ability to teach.

Truth: Learning is a complex function of individual participants' motivation and capacity, the norms of the training group, the training method, the trainer's behavior and trust, the general climate of the organization, etc.

3. Assumption: Individual learning/action leads to improvement on the job.

Truth: Job improvement is a complex function of individual learning, the norms of the working group, and the organizational culture.

4. Since on-the-job performance depends on the variables mentioned above, it can lead to individual frustration. As a result, the individual may become skeptical about the outcomes when attending future training programs.

5. Excessive use of ready-made material and more emphasis on face value rather than actual learning.

6. Convenient outcomes: Trainers often follow a non-controversial path to ensure that participants and organizers are satisfied.

7. Incompetent trainers who heavily rely on standard modules may lack an understanding of action science approaches, systems thinking, socio-technical systems, and other experiential learning tools.

Deboleena Roy

Most managements have a jaundiced view of training, which is the very core criterion in building a talent pool of skilled employees. When you resort to short-term measures like poaching, long-term measures like training take a backseat. Flawed thinking, really.

Dear Sandeep,

This is Sudarshan Choradia from Bangalore. I am the founder and chief coach at New Edge Training Solutions. Here are some of the factors why Indian companies lag behind in training:

Training happens at two levels - a) On-the-job training and b) Off-the-job training. At N.E.T.S, we focus on off-the-job training.

1. It's not whether the companies can afford training their employees in monetary terms, but what I have seen is that they are not willing to give adequate time for it.

2. The methodology used for evaluating training effectiveness is not satisfactory.

3. Time is the most critical factor. Every training is a cause set in motion, and once the wheel starts spinning, there will be a moment in time where we begin to notice change. Indian organizations need to be patient in terms of visible and measurable results.

4. The trainers give their 100% while conducting sessions. It is also the responsibility of the employees to put in their efforts. Most of the employees take training for granted. Employees need to ensure that they are constantly applying the tools and techniques shared in the sessions. They need to understand that mastery of any skill takes time and effort.

5. The system never fails; we fail the system.

I hope that the information shared is helpful.

Cheers & regards,

Sudarshan Choradia

Dear Sandeep,

In India, the top management of banks is really interested in training and so frames a training policy. I am speaking of public sector banks in India. The training colleges are equally interested in imparting training. However, it is the middle-layer management - often the branch managers - which often come in the way. Either the branch managers are not interested in sending the employees for training or they feel it is not worthwhile sending them!! They are the real culprits who discourage the staff. Of course, there are honorable exceptions. That is why some of the banks have started recovering the training cost if the employee doesn't attend the training after two nominations. But if the branch head receives a call for training, he will positively attend it regardless of branch problems! Therefore, we require managers who are interested in encouraging employees to attend the training, but their number is very less. This is my 30 years of experience in banks.

Added to this, some faculty use too many PowerPoint presentations, which defeats the purpose of training. I have seen one faculty member using 50 slides on a "know your customer" training program but often could not do justice to it as the time for completing it was always insufficient. That means we do not involve the participants. The faculty do not emphasize certain important things when required. Faculty do not prepare well in advance for the program, but do it as a ritual. They don't read and update the handouts given to participants.

The delivery is not inspiring; often, it is a mechanical presentation. They don't breathe life into their presentation. Many of the faculty only have their eyes on "good feedback" to continue in the training system. Hence, they will be too kind to participants. They often leave them before concluding the program. If a participant comes late, they don't ask him "why he is late?" This is what I have observed.

Training can really be made useful and motivating if the faculty is genuinely interested and breathes life into his presentation. But alas! ...

M.J. Subramanyam, Chennai