UPI Study › Courses › Principles of Management › Free lessons › Lesson 13.5 Free with a free account
Developing the Workforce: Training Programs, Mentoring, On-the-Job Learning, and Rotation
Principles of Management · Chapter 13: Human Resource ManagementSection 13.5 · lesson 87 of 11713 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Principles of Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Principles of Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Respect at Work: Employee Rights, Privacy, and Safety →← Diagnosing Skill Gaps: Identifying Training NeedsNext lesson: Respect at Work: Employee Rights, Privacy, and Safety →
In this lesson
Training programs, mentoring, on-the-job learning, and rotation.
- Compare training methods by what each can achieve
- Distinguish mentoring, coaching, and sponsorship
- Explain what determines whether training transfers to the workplace
- Interpret the 4 levels of training evaluation
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,773 words). Read along, or search it.
Human Resource Management
Developing the Workforce
Once a genuine skill gap is diagnosed, the question becomes how to close it. This section surveys the methods, and what each one can actually achieve. We'll match methods to four kinds of objective: knowledge, skill, judgment, and attitude. We'll see why on-the-job training dominates in practice, and why it so often fails. We'll look at rotation, stretch assignments, and project work as ways to build judgment. We'll separate three relationships that people constantly conflate: mentoring, coaching, and sponsorship. Then we'll ask what makes training transfer to the workplace, and how to evaluate it at four levels. And we'll close at Harborline Manufacturing, where a well-run mentoring program left one thing untouched.
The Method Set
7 Ways to Close a Diagnosed Skill Gap
Once Subchapter thirteen point four's assessment has identified a genuine skill gap, several methods can close it. Structured on-the-job instruction teaches directly within the work itself. We'll develop it fully in a moment. Preceptorship pairs a learner with an experienced practitioner, for extended, guided practice on real work. It's common in clinical and technical fields. Classroom instruction delivers content to a group, in a dedicated learning setting. E-learning delivers content through self-paced digital material. Blended designs combine several of these formats, deliberately. Simulation practices a skill under realistic conditions, but without real consequences. And structured practice with feedback repeats a task under observation, with correction along the way. These aren't interchangeable. Each one is good at producing a different kind of learning. So the real question is which method fits which objective.
Matching Method to Objective
The Format Follows the Objective
Learning objectives come in four kinds, and each needs a genuinely different design. There's one common error worth naming directly. It's using a knowledge format for a skill objective. That means sitting someone through a lecture or a slide presentation, when what she needs is repeated, observed practice. A knowledge objective asks someone to know a fact or a procedure. Classroom instruction or e-learning serves it well. A skill objective asks someone to perform a task correctly. That requires structured practice with feedback, or simulation. No amount of watching or reading substitutes for doing. A judgment objective asks someone to make good decisions under genuine ambiguity. Judgment resists being taught in the abstract. It's best built through stretch assignments and real project exposure. An attitude objective asks someone to hold a different disposition toward something. That typically takes sustained experience and relationship, not any single instructional session. So the format has to follow the objective, never the other way around.
On-the-Job Training
Why It Dominates, and Why It Often Fails
On-the-job training dominates in actual practice, and there are three genuine reasons. It's cheap. There's no separate program, and no dedicated instructional time. It's contextual. It happens within the real conditions where the skill will be used. And it's immediately transferable. There's no gap between where learning happens and where the skill is applied. But it also frequently fails, and the reasons follow directly from how it's usually delivered. It's typically unstructured, with no defined sequence of what to cover. It's undocumented, with no record of what was actually taught, or verified. And it's delivered by people with no instructional preparation. Picture an experienced colleague who's asked to show the new person the ropes. She may be an excellent performer herself, without ever having been prepared to teach. So the strengths are real. The failures come from the way it's delivered.
Structured On-the-Job Training
4 Elements That Correct the Failures
Structured on-the-job training corrects those failures directly, through four elements. First, a defined task list. It specifies exactly what will be covered, rather than whatever happens to come up. Second, a qualified trainer, someone actually prepared to teach, not merely to perform the task herself. Third, a demonstration and practice sequence. It moves deliberately from showing, to guided practice, to an independent attempt. Fourth, a sign-off. It formally verifies that the learner can perform the task to standard, before she's considered trained. Notice how each element answers a specific failure. The task list answers the lack of structure. The qualified trainer answers the lack of preparation. And the sign-off answers the missing documentation. It creates exactly the kind of documented record that Subchapter thirteen point two showed is valuable.
Building Capability Through Experience
Rotation, Stretch, and Project Work
Job rotation first appeared in Subchapter eleven point nine, as a job design technique for monotony and skill development. Here, it's treated specifically as a development tool. That means planned movement between roles, undertaken deliberately to build capability. Each placement carries a genuine learning objective. It's not rotation for its own sake. The cost from Subchapter eleven point nine still applies. Each transition carries a real productivity cost. Someone newly rotated into an unfamiliar role performs below an experienced occupant, while she adjusts. That cost has to be weighed against the specific capability the rotation is meant to build. Three related mechanisms build judgment. A stretch assignment is work that genuinely exceeds a person's proven capability. An acting appointment means temporarily performing a more senior role. A project assignment is time-limited work, outside a person's normal responsibilities. These build judgment precisely because instruction can't. Judgment develops by facing an ambiguous situation, with real stakes and no predetermined answer. No classroom exercise can fully simulate that, however well it's designed.
Table 13.5.1
Mentoring, Coaching, and Sponsorship Compared
Three developmental relationships are routinely conflated, and they deserve to be distinguished precisely. Mentoring is focused broadly on the mentee's growth. Her career, her judgment, and her overall development. It typically runs for an extended period, often a year or more. It primarily benefits the mentee, and it changes how she thinks about her own development. Coaching is focused narrowly on a specific skill, or performance area. It's typically shorter, and tied to a defined improvement goal. It primarily benefits the person being coached. What it changes is a specific, observable capability. Sponsorship is something different again. It's advocacy for advancement. Someone with genuine organizational influence actively uses it on another person's behalf, rather than simply advising her. Sponsorship is ongoing, and often informal and less structured. It primarily benefits the person being sponsored, and what it changes is her actual access to advancement opportunity. Look closely at that last comparison. Only sponsorship changes access itself.
The Important Observation
Sponsorship Moves Careers
That leads to the observation worth stating directly. Sponsorship is what actually moves careers. And it's distributed less evenly than mentoring. Mentoring is relatively easy to formalize, and to scale through a program. It mainly needs a willing, somewhat experienced person, and time. Sponsorship needs someone who already holds real influence, to actively spend it on one specific person. That's a much scarcer resource. It tends to flow through existing informal networks, not formal programs. This connects to leader-member exchange, from Subchapter ten point five. Sponsorship is, in a real sense, what a high-quality exchange relationship with someone influential produces in career terms. Formal mentoring programs still have value, but they work only under specific conditions. Genuine matching between mentor and mentee, not arbitrary pairing. Real time allocated, not an unfunded expectation layered onto already-full schedules. Voluntary participation on both sides, not a mandate imposed on reluctant people. And organizational visibility, signaling the program is genuinely valued, rather than a token gesture.
Transfer of Training
Does Learning Reach the Workplace?
Transfer of training is whether learning from a training setting actually reaches the workplace, and changes behavior there. It depends partly on design features. How closely the training resembles real working conditions. How much practice it includes. How relevant its content is. But more decisively, it depends on the manager. Does the manager expect the new learning to be applied? Does she reinforce it? Does she create the chance to use it? That's why a training investment without manager involvement usually produces nothing. Picture an employee returning from training. Her manager never asks about it, and never creates room to apply it. And the manager keeps rewarding the old way of doing things, exactly as before. That employee has little reason to change her behavior. And that holds, no matter how well the training itself was designed.
Figure 13.5.1
4 Evaluation Levels, Rising in Cost
Training is evaluated across four levels, and each one measures something genuinely different. Reaction measures whether participants found the training useful, or enjoyable. It's typically a survey, at low cost. Learning measures whether they actually acquired the intended knowledge or skill by the end of the session. That takes a test or a demonstration, at moderate cost. Behavior measures whether that learning changed what they do back on the job. It takes observation, at higher cost. Results measures whether the behavior change produced the organizational outcome the training was meant to serve. It relies on outcome data, and it's the most expensive level of all. The pattern is a steady climb. Cost rises at every step, from reaction to results. And that climb explains a great deal about how organizations actually evaluate training.
Reading the Results
What a Positive Result Does and Does Not Prove
A positive result at each level proves less, on its own, than it might appear to. A strong reaction score proves participants enjoyed the session. It proves nothing about whether they learned anything. A strong learning score proves they could demonstrate the material at the end of training. It doesn't prove that knowledge survives contact with the actual workplace. A genuine behavior change proves the training reached real practice. It still doesn't prove that the changed practice produced any organizational benefit. Only a results measurement closes that final gap. But results are also the hardest and most expensive level to isolate, because so many other factors affect an outcome at once. So most organizations stop at reaction. The logic is the same one Subchapter thirteen point four applied to training itself. A short survey at the end of a session is cheap and easy. Learning, behavior, and results each demand more time, access, and analytical effort to measure honestly. The satisfaction survey is the path of least resistance. It's also the level that proves the least.
Case Vignette
Harborline Runs a Mentoring Program While Sponsorship Runs Elsewhere
Here's a composite case, constructed for instruction. Harborline Manufacturing, a fictional company, launched a formal mentoring program. It carefully matched junior employees with senior mentors, and gave both sides structured guidance on making it productive. A year in, feedback on the relationships themselves was genuinely positive. Participants described real value in the guidance and perspective they had received. Advancement patterns, however, hadn't shifted at all. The same small, informal network of senior leaders kept championing specific favored employees, for stretch opportunities and promotions. That happened almost entirely independent of who had been matched with whom. The program had done exactly what mentoring does. It had genuinely developed participants. What it hadn't done is what only sponsorship can do, because sponsorship was never part of it. The mentors shared valuable guidance. Most were not spending their own influence advocating for their mentees. That resource kept flowing through the older, informal channels the program never touched. Next, Subchapter thirteen point six turns to employee rights, privacy, and safety.
About Principles of Management at UPI Study
Principles of Management (Business 101) is a self-paced online course of 117 video lessons in 17 chapters, from the classical schools and the four management functions to leadership, motivation, change, human resources, strategy and ethics. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Principles of Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Principles of Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Developing the Workforce: Training Programs, Mentoring, On-the-Job Learning, and Rotation
What is the difference between mentoring, coaching, and sponsorship?
Which training methods work best for knowledge, skills, and judgment?
What is transfer of training, and what affects it?
What are the four levels of training evaluation?
About the Principles of Management course
How many college credits is Principles of Management?
How much does Principles of Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Principles of Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Principles of Management.
117 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →