Reference no: EM133313187

Case Study: A Training Mis-diagnosis or Mistake? Sue Campbell, the Training Representative for the regional office of a large service organization, had been very excited about the new training program. The HRM Department at the headquarters office had informed her six months ago that it had purchased a speed-reading training program from a reputable firm, and statistics showed that the program had indeed proven to be very effective in other companies. Sue knew that most individuals in the regional office were faced, on a daily basis, with a sizeable amount of incoming correspondence, including internal memoranda, announcements of new and revised policies and procedures, reports of federal legislation, and letters from customers. So, a course in speed reading should certainly have helped most employees. The headquarters office had flown regional Training Representatives in for a special session on how to conduct the speed-reading program. Sue had, therefore, begun the program in her regional office with great confidence. She led five groups (30 employees each) through the program, which consisted of nine two-hour sessions. Sessions were conducted in the on-site training facilities. Altogether, 1,200 employees in the organization participated in the training, at an approximate cost to the company of $110 per participant (including training materials and time away from work). The program was very well received by the participants, and speed tests administered before and after training showed that, on average, reading speed increased 250 percent with no loss in comprehension. A couple of months after the last session, Sue informally asked a couple of employees who had gone through the training if they were applying the speed-reading principles in their work and maintaining their reading speed. They said they were not using it at work but did practice their new skills with their off-the-job reading. Sue checked with several other participants and heard the same story. Although they were applying what they had learned in their personal reading and for school courses, they were not using it on the job. When Sue asked them about all of the reading material which crossed their desks daily, the typical response was, "I never read those memos and policy announcements anyway!" Sue was concerned about this information but didn't know what to do with it.

Question 1. Short case summary.

Question 2. Who are the stakeholders involved in the case?

Question 3. HR problem/issue/challenge.

Question 4. What are the most important theoretical concepts linked to the case? Explain the concepts and their relevance to the case.

Question 5. Did Sue really waste valuable training funds?

Question 6. How could organizations effectively assess their training needs?