Let's Talk About "Check the Box" Training
Who doesn't get annoyed with the training created just to "check the box?"
Seriously? What's the point?
I mean, I know the point... To ensure that employees know critical information so that they can be compliant or act in a certain way. Sometimes it's to level set and often it's so the organization can avoid litigation. Of course, the intentions behind the requirement are positive, but when it is treated as just a way to "check the box," it doesn't have any more impact than that or sometimes, it can even negatively impact the L&D team. This happens because "check the box" training:
Doesn't translate to changes in behavior on the job.
Wastes time, money, and resources.
Sends the wrong message about L&D.
As L&D professionals, we likely can't change compliance regulations or the directive to meet them. These are instances where we need to "take the order." But we can change how we fulfill that order through creative thinking, shifting our mindset, and leaning into our learning expertise.
Let's explore the problems that can be caused by check the box training requirements and potential solutions. I've got a few stories...
PROBLEM #1: Check the box training doesn't translate to changes in on-the-job behavior
Several years ago, I was working at a company who hired a consultant to deliver required training related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) to all employees. At face value, this seems like a reasonable and valuable request. I have no qualms about improving awareness, understanding, and behaviors around this topic. I will be the first to admit that I have much to learn. However, the methodology and design used for this required training didn't accomplish the goal. Here's how it went down...
For the general employee population, the consultant facilitated a single required virtual training session on the topic of unconscious bias. The course did make me think about the topic... for a bit, during the class and in the moment. But the forgetting curve, real life distractions, and already established habits are a powerful combination. My memory of this single training meant to reset any of my unconscious bias quickly became fuzzy. I don't remember the specifics of what the consultant covered, and I don't believe my daily behaviors and actions changed as a result.
Like this experience, most required training is born from good intentions. The presence of the requirement should stress the importance of the topic to the organization, or it should prove to governing and legal bodies that a good faith effort was made to ensure a baseline level of knowledge. The assumption is made that behavior change will naturally follow the requirement. But, because of the way these requirements are designed and delivered, it rarely does. Even for those who are well intentioned, as I was in this scenario, the distractions of our everyday life are a stronger, more urgent pull than connecting the dots and changing behavior. What can we do?
L&D SOLUTION #1: Weave the necessary learning into everyday life
I worked at an organization that implemented a "phishing" education campaign to stop employees from clicking on potentially harmful emails. The campaign started with a required e-learning, but it didn't end there. The e-learning was followed by a week dedicated to raising awareness about cyber security. Each day there was some type of learning game complete with prizes (think "spot the incorrect actions" pictures, trivia, and more) focused on the key components of cyber security. It was happening virtually within our inboxes and in the building with posters and other visuals. We were bombarded with the message for that week. It was great, but...
... the really brilliant part is what happened after all of the "programmed" activities. The IT department put a "phishing" button at the top of our email screens. As part of the training, we were instructed to click on that button if we received a suspicious email and it would be reported to the security team to check it out. Periodically, the team sent a fake phishing email. If we reported the fake email via the phishing button, we were rewarded with a "Congratulations and thanks for keeping us safe!" pop-up. But if we clicked the link... well... I did that once. Not only did I get instant feedback that I messed up, but I also received a series of emails for the next 3 months reminding me how to watch for a phishing email. I haven't clicked on another fake email since! Behavior change complete!
How can you move required compliance training away from one and done to a campaign that continues in everyday life?
This approach took much more time and effort. But if the topic is really important to the organization and the safety of its employees and/or customers, isn't it worth it? Do we really want actions to change as a result? By putting on our creative L&D expertise hats above our "we just need to do this" hats, we can design thoughtful experiences that do shift behavior.
PROBLEM #2: Check the box training wastes time, money, and resources
Here's an example that might sound familiar. My husband works in finance. He has held the same type of job in the same industry for over 25 years. Every two years, he completes 24 hours of obligatory compliance training to ensure he still knows the rules. Guess what? He knows them. So, he spends 24 hours clicking through e-learnings just to fulfill the requirement (a.k.a. check the boxes). Note that he spends 24 hours CLICKING. He doesn't read. He doesn't listen. He isn't trying to comprehend information. He already knows the information and only moves his mouse from time to time to click next. Did I mention that he spends 24 HOURS doing this?
The part of my brain that is wired for efficiency wants to scream as I begin adding up the cost vs. outcome ratio. There is the time lost (he could be doing other things) plus the dollars spent on his salary, the salaries of everyone who created the e-learnings, the time to coordinate the training by a central function, etc. etc.
L&D SOLUTION #2: Create a "prove it first" design
If my husband really knows the information, he shouldn't need the 24 hours of training every other year. What if he could somehow "prove" that he knows and is comfortable with the information before he clicks into a 24-hour commitment? What might that look like?
In high school, I took language courses and participated in language camps over the summer (I liked learning a second language). When I enrolled in college, I took a placement exam to determine my level of fluency. The result? I tested out of and received automatic credit for certain lower level courses. That meant I was able to earn a language major in the same number of hours it normally took to earn a minor. My previous knowledge and experiences saved me time and money. What a great way to reward those who are doing the work to learn!
How can we ensure that only those who genuinely need the training spend the time to participate?
What if we took a similar approach with compliance training? I'm envisioning a comprehensive knowledge assessment that starts, not ends, the training process. If someone passes with flying colors and we are confident in their knowledge, they would be able to skip most (if not all) of the training hours. If someone fails, then the 24 hours become mandatory or, even better yet, that person only needs to complete training modules related to the missing knowledge.
If an assessment isn't enough, consider knowledge combined with a performance component. Compliance errors are tracked in most industries. If data shows an employee continues to be in compliance year after year and passes the knowledge assessment, perhaps we save the time and resources of everyone involved and consider that audit requirement met, not by a "check the box" but by data demonstrating the real desired outcome - knowledge and behavior on the job.
PROBLEM #3: Check the box training sends the wrong message about L&D
Here's my final story. I worked at a company whose overall growth strategy was based on acquisitions. In fact, my company was one of several recently acquired. The acquiring company's leadership determined that there was a need to "level set" expected behavior for people leaders as they integrated all their recent acquisitions (including my company). At face value, this sounds like a great idea as part of an overall integration plan. But it played out differently...
The acquiring company's talent development team was told to create training for this "level set" and to do it as soon as possible. With the pressure on, the TD team decided to throw together a series of virtual sessions and require all people leaders to attend. In total, they were requiring eight hours of training, broken up into two-hour segments over the course of a few weeks.
The training was required for all people leaders, no matter if someone had been leading teams for 15 days or 15 years. Also, it didn't matter whether the leader had stellar performance ratings and a kick-butt team with low turnover or whether they were barely hanging on, underperforming, and people couldn't leave their team fast enough. Every people leader was required to attend all eight hours...
...AND the training was deployed at the busiest time of year for the acquired companies. Workloads were through the roof and every team member was working overtime. People leaders were answering questions, calming customer escalations, and trying to help their teams in any way they could. They didn't take lunch breaks and barely had two minutes in the day for the needed bio break.
Take a moment to envision yourself in the midst of this scenario and then imagine you get a directive from the talent development team in your acquiring organization telling you that you now need to attend eight hours of required leadership training to level set expectations.
It was as bad as you could imagine. Because the talent development team was under the gun, they threw aside learning best practice and put as much content as they could on slides. The leadership concepts they shared were not new - have regular one-on-ones, address conflict sooner than later, help your team members set goals, etc. Occasionally they threw the attendees into breakout rooms for a quick five-minute discussion.
Let me ask you, if you are the people leader in your busiest time of year who is already stressed and sleep deprived and you show up to eight hours of leadership training where people read slides to you about things you already do... what is your impression of the talent development team at the new company?
Again, the intentions here were good. For all intents and purposes, I'm certain the talent development team felt backed into a corner and did what they could to meet the demands of upper leadership. But that training alone, with every influential leader at the newly acquired organizations attending, did more damage than good. Now the people leaders believed that the TD team had no knowledge of their business and pressures, and that they delivered boring and unnecessary content with a "required" stamp. Needless to say, none of them were keen on working with this team after that experience.
L&D SOLUTION #3: Learn about the business first and design viable solutions second
If the talent development team really wanted to make a positive impression in this story, they would have asked more questions.
Questions about the leaders in the newly acquired companies and their workloads: What is your busiest time of year? What is the best way to get you information?
Questions about why a level set was needed for all people leaders: What's the purpose behind this request (awareness, behavior change, etc.)? Why might ALL people leaders need this?
Questions about why the level set is needed now: How did this request come to be? What is driving this request (i.e. is it an issue with a few loud people leaders or are there legal ramifications)?
How can we ensure our solutions meet the needs of the business and the participants?
By learning about the business first, followed by the desired outcomes as set by the requesters, the team could have designed something that worked for everyone. For example, if a few were causing the problems, could they invest the money spent to pull all people leaders into a classroom for 8 hours (think salary $$) to individually coach a few? If the need was awareness, could they get information to the leaders in a written or audio form that to consume on their own time? If the goal was behavior change, could they follow-up with shorter, more interactive sessions/learnings or a campaign around a few key best practices over time? If the directive really was to utilize in person sessions could they make it more interactive and engaging and not at the participants busiest time of year?
We can do better.
Even if our companies are required by legal entities to provide training, there must be a reason why. If we can understand the reason, and we understand our business, we can respond with an appropriate product that genuinely meets the objectives, moves the needle forward, and illustrates that L&D is a credible strategic partner.
**Caveat: Yes, I realize there are many changes that would need to be made to workloads, auditing structures, assumptions, theories of thought, and more in order for these solutions to become reality across the board. I also understand that some compliance entities specify training to the level of modality and minutes (i.e. 3 hours of classroom training). But that doesn't mean L&D can't get creative. What can we do? Most changes start with small acts that add up over time.
Can we really afford to just keep checking boxes?
