Multiple Perspectives on Training Evaluation: Probing Stakeholder Perceptions in a Global Network Development Firm

Although stakeholder-based evaluation has been fairly well developed in the general program evaluation literature, it remains barely recognized in training evaluation practice. This article aims to contribute to our understanding of multiple stakeholder perceptions about training evaluation in an organizational context. Extending prior empirical work that described differences in stakeholder perceptions about valued training outcomes, the current case study examines multiple stakeholder perspectives of the purposes, processes, and consequences of evaluation in a global telecommunications network development firm. Semistructured interviews with 15 individuals in three stakeholder groups were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded for analysis. Diverging from common training evaluation practice, which generally fails to acknowledge and frequently limits stakeholder involvement, the current results provide evidence for a multiplicity of stakeholder views. These views were found to be related to the job role of a stakeholder in the organization. For example, training sponsors (line managers with budgetary discretion) described largely formative evaluation purposes, as well as instrumental and symbolic forms of utilization, to improve training for their employees. Training participants (employees with direct or indirect reporting relationships with the managers interviewed) described mixed (formative-summative) purposes, as well as instrumental and conceptual forms of utilization, to improve specific courses and to make informed course selections. Training providers (internal training specialists who develop and deploy training for the previous two groups as internal organizational clients) described evaluation in terms of mixed purposes, and instrumental and symbolic forms of utilization, mostly to highlight training merit and worth and to sustain and expand training budgets. These differing perspectives are discussed in terms of a three-dimensional schema of collaborative inquiry and evaluation. Implications for training and program evaluation research and practice are also discussed. Greg V. Michalski ● ACT, Inc., Training Evaluation Services (TES), Professional Development Division, 2255 North Dubuque Road, P.O. Box 168, Iowa City, IA 52243-0168; Tel.: (319) 341-2425; E-mail: [email protected]. American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2001, pp. 37–53. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 1098-2140 Copyright © 2001 by American Evaluation Association.