The culture of learning and development (L&D) in the workplace has been gaining momentum, yet the effectiveness of these initiatives is frequently called into question. Although a wide array of trainings aimed at developing employee capacity are being offered with increasing frequency, there is a notable lack of emphasis on evaluating their impact or making them more effective. A successful training session depends not only on its delivery but also on the preparedness and engagement of the participants. The primary objective of these trainings is to enhance professional skills, ultimately leading to improved performance.
A significant amount of money is being invested in these training and skill development programmes by both the government and private sector organisations. This substantial financial commitment underscores the widespread belief in the importance of cultivating skilled human resources within the country. However, without a corresponding focus on measuring the return on this investment and ensuring the trainings are genuinely impactful, there’s a risk that these efforts may not achieve their full potential.
Early history
The National Vocational Training Academy (NVTA), a government institution, was established long ago to train the human resources needed for industries and businesses. It was founded in 1936, shortly after the establishment of Nepal’s first industrial enterprise, the Biratnagar Jute Mill. Over time, the academy evolved into a comprehensive vocational training institute.
Today, NVTA offers a variety of training programmes, including basic and advanced skill development, entrepreneurship training, training for trainers (ToT), pre-departure orientation for migrant workers (PDOT), and apprenticeships. The overarching goal is to improve the income of the working-age population by providing them with vocational skills. The academy provides training in fields such as beautician services, tailoring, electrical work, and automobile and motorcycle maintenance, among others.
While NVTA was established with a deep understanding of the need for a skilled workforce, it has since lost momentum, and its intensive, impactful trainings are no longer its focus. The Central Training Institute of Agricultural Development Bank Limited (ADBL) in Bode, Bhaktapur, shares a similar history. “Project managers for agricultural development projects run by the ADBL had to complete at least three months of intensive training before they were deployed to the field,” recalls Shankar Man Shrestha, the founder and executive director of the Centre for Self-help Development (CSD), who previously served on ADBL’s senior management team. He adds, “The trainings were intensive and aligned with performance.”
Regulatory requirement
In regulated sectors, particularly the financial industry, training and development are given high priority. Banks, financial institutions (BFIs), and insurance companies often have their own training academies. Market players, including regulators, have also collectively established institutes like the National Banking Institute (NBI). To date, the NBI has conducted 2,862 training sessions, with 80,659 professionals receiving training.
However, capacity gaps persist not only in the private sector but also within regulatory bodies and government agencies. A prime example is the country’s inability to fully address the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) 40+ recommendations, which led to the country being placed on the grey list. These tasks were primarily the responsibility of Nepal Rastra Bank, the Ministry of Finance, and the Parliament (for law-making). The issues extended beyond delays in law-making to include weak enforcement.
Nepal Rastra Bank has made mandatory provisions for employee capacity enhancement in its Circular 6 on Corporate Governance. This circular states that certification courses must be recognised as qualifications during employee selection, transfer, and promotion. Furthermore, BFIs are required to spend 3% of their total salary and perks on staff training and to provide equal opportunities to all employees. Dr. Chiranjivi Nepal, former Governor of Nepal Rastra Bank who introduced this mandatory 3% requirement, has noted the reluctance of BFIs to invest in employee training. He remarked that the provision was introduced ‘to provide intensive training to employees to improve performance and minimise operational risks’.
Similarly, the Nepal Insurance Authority (NIA) and insurers have jointly established the Insurance Institute of Nepal (IIN) to enhance the capacity of professionals through rigorous training.
Training is often perceived as a mandatory requirement by many corporations and businesses. Multinational companies, for instance, conduct rigorous training for their employees, utilising innovative methods and encouraging them to obtain certification from acclaimed institutions, both domestic and international. Government employees also receive intensive training when they first join the service. However, there is a lack of acknowledgment that continuous training is necessary throughout an employee’s career.
Trainings for impact or to fulfil audit compliance…
The most pressing question today revolves around the effectiveness of training. A training’s success hinges on multiple factors, including the characteristics of the learners, the design and delivery of the training itself, the learning environment, and the organisation’s support for such initiatives.
Key aspects include a learner’s motivation, prior knowledge, and preferred learning styles, as well as the clarity and relevance of the content and the delivery methods. Furthermore, an organisation’s culture of learning plays a crucial role in determining whether training translates into tangible improvements in performance and productivity.
Raveena Desraj Shrestha, a training and development expert, voices her concerns over the effectiveness of training, despite significant organisational investments. She states that in many institutions, training remains ‘compliance-led or reactive, rather than transformation-led or strategic’. She warns that ‘tick-the-box training may fulfil audit trails but fails to shift performance or mindset’. To be truly impactful, she argues, training must be seen as an investment, not an expense. It needs to be linked to business Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), delivered by credible facilitators, and followed by measurement and reinforcement. According to Shrestha, a culture of continuous learning must be championed from the top.
She also emphasises the vital role of the Human Resources Department in aligning institutional goals with employee development needs through data-driven needs assessments, 360-degree feedback, and performance insights. “Human Resources must champion post-training reinforcement, coaching, and outcome tracking – moving from ‘how many attended’ to ‘what changed’.” She concludes, “Learning without application is simply memory. HR ensures translation into action.”
Experts agree that for training to be effective, a proper needs assessment is crucial. The course should be designed to accommodate the varying levels of employee understanding, and the delivery methods should be innovative to engage recipients rather than relying on mundane presentations. These pre-training groundworks, along with the selection of trainers, evaluation during the training, and consistent post-training follow-up, provide essential feedback for continuous improvement.
