3 Mengapa pelatihan ? Karyawan baru (orientasi) Memperkenalkan teknologi baruMemberlakukan prosedur/sistem baruPromosiPersiapan pensiun
4 Dasar Pelatihan Proses belajar (perub. perilaku yang relatif permanen yang terjadi sebagai hasil dari pengalaman)
5 Ingat kembali beberapa teori belajar Clasical Conditioning (Pavlov)Bljr tjd ketika 2 peristiwa dialami dlm waktu dan tempat yg sama dan saling berhubungan,misal : suara mesin tdk normal – rusak - dimatikan
6 Operant Conditioning (Skinner) Proses belajar diikuti dg konsekuensi penguatan atau hukuman dalam perilakunyaModelling (Bandura)Belajar terjadi melalui observasi dan imitasi perilaku or-la
7 Kriteria Keberhasilan Pelatihan KESIAPAN TRAINEESTRUKTUR PROGRAM PELATIHANTRANSFER OF TRAININGHSL BELAJAR UTK TRAINEE
8 Kesiapan Trainee Apakah trainee siap belajar ? Apakah trainee butuh pelatihan itu ?Apakah trainee punya kemampuan dasar belajar?Apakah trainee punya motivasi ?
9 Struktur program pelatihan : Kapan dan seberapa sering pelatihan diadakan ?Berapa lama tiap sesinya berlangsung ?Bagaimana kesempatan penerapannya bg trainee ?Cukupkah bimbingan dan perhatian kepada trainee ?
10 Transfer of trainingApakah transfer pelatihan ke lingkungan riil cukup baik ?
11 Hasil belajar untuk trainee Apakah dapat dilihat manfaatnya ?
12 Kebutuhan Pelatihan Analisis Organisasi unit yang akan dilatih tujuan jangka pendek danpanjangbiayapartisipasi karyawan dansupervisor
13 b. Analisis Tugas (dari job description) pengetahuan, ketrampilan dan kemampuan yg harus dimiliki c. Analisis Pribadimelihat kapabilitas karyawand. Analisis demografipria, wanita, usia tertentu
14 METODE PELATIHANMETODE ON-SITE 1. On the job training biaya murah dan persiapan mudah trainer belum tentu berkualitas produksi selama pelatihan dpt terganggu
30 Evaluasi Pelatihan Kirkpatrick’s standards for success Reactions (positif /negatif?), suka/tdk suka?Learning (belajar sesuatu?)Behavior (perub. Perilaku?)Results (pd indiv & org ?)Overall “training effectiveness” **To tell if our training program was a success, we must evaluate it. Whether transfer occurred is part of this evaluation. A more “classic” perspective is Kirkpatrick’s. He came up with a 4-level way to evaluate whether training “worked.” His most basic level was reactions - were the reactions of the trainees generally positive, or generally negative? Did they LIKE the training? Then there was learning. Did they learn anything from the training? Next came behavior, whether there was a change in the behavior of the trainees as a result of the trainees (this is where we come closest to the idea of “transfer” in his system). Finally, he had results as a criterion for success - and here, we were asking the question, “Was there a change in the bottom line as a result of training?” It could be asked of the organization - we implemented a new training program, are we making more money? - or it could be asked of the individual - I went through advanced training on how to wait tables, am I getting more tips? You can break Kirkpatrick’s standards down into criteria that are internal to the trainee - how did they react to the training, and did they learn? - and ones that are external - does the behavior change, and are the results different. We can argue pretty forcefully that for the company, the external standards are more important - but they’re also the hardest to “leverage” (that is, affect) and the hardest to develop.Recently, researchers and practitioners have started moving past Kirkpatrick’s criteria and talking more about a “holistic” approach to training effectiveness. At a broad level, did it work? This includes multiple perspectives. The trainer, trainees, organization, customers, and all sorts of folks are part of the assessment of whether training made a difference, and whether the goals of training were met.