SYSTEMS MODEL APPROACH TO DESIGNING LEARNING & DEVEOPMEMT:

THE CASE OF MENTORING AT ERNST & YOUNG

Robert D. Hatfield, Western Kentucky University

Gordon Ford College of Business

Norbert F. Elbert, Eastern Kentucky University

Department of Management, Marketing and International Business

Robert D. Hatfield, Western Kentucky University

ABSTRACT

The training literature affirms a model which views learning and development (i.e.,
L&D) as a system. Most references to such a model indicate that it is a multi-step model which
begins with a needs assessment step and ends with a training evaluation step. However, both
employers and students struggle with understanding and implementing the steps of the complete
model. It is estimated that nearly 75 percent of companies experience conflict between members
of different generations and many are using mentoring as one means of reducing it. The case of
mentoring at Ernst & Young provides an excellent illustration of learning and development using
all steps in the acknowledged model. This article identifies this acknowledged learning and
development model, applies the facts of the Ernst & Young example to the model, and examines
implications in today’s learning environment.

INTRODUCTION

The importance of training is increasing in the U.S. U.S. companies are providing more
hours of formal training than ever before. The 2011 State of the Industry report, developed
annually by the American Society for Training & Development (ASTD) found that the average
U.S. worker, in 2010, now receives 56 hours per employee, up dramatically from the 47 hours in
2009 (Green and McGill, 2011). The money spent per employee on training in the U.S. also
increased to $1228 per employee in 2010, a 13 percent increase from 2009 in the amount spent
per employee on Learning and Development (i.e.,L&D) activities and infrastructure. This led to
a total of $171.5 billion spent on L&D in 2010. Data from more than 400 responding
organizations, across all sectors, demonstrate that there is an ongoing commitment to the
delivery of knowledge and the development of employees from the hourly level through top
management.
Coaching and mentoring are two training methods quickly becoming the method of
choice for grooming the next generation of managers and employees. The Society of Human
Resource Management (SHRM) reported that nearly 75 percent of companies they polled
experience conflict between generations and that 56 percent are actively working to address and
reduce this conflict (FAST FACT, 2011). In 2012, five generations will be present in the
workplace, so the problem is only growing. Coaching and mentoring, inevitably, must play a
key role in such a transformation.
Organizations need to tap into the rich pools of knowledge available within their firms,
and then find ways to share it among employees. Mentoring is an excellent strategy for learning
professionals at all levels, but especially at the entry level (Zachary, 2009). Recently “learning”
has become an even broader and popular employee development term. Knowledge management,
organizational learning, continuous (individual) learning, and other paradigm shifts in
management thinking are a result of the “new economy” based upon “knowledge” workers.
Learning is “a self-directed, work-based process leading to increased adaptive capacity” (Wexley
and Latham, 1981).
The thought of learning often brings to mind a trainer and traditional training techniques
such as watching a video or listening to a lecture. However, the actual process of conducting the
training is one part of the total training process. Successful training involves considerable effort
both before and after the training is “delivered”. In other words, training is best thought of as a
complex system that involves a number of distinct but highly interrelated sequential steps.
Researchers and training authors have advanced models which seem to have a core of
acknowledged requirements (see Noe, 2005; Alvarez, 2004; Hadfield-Law, 2002; Walker &
Krueger, 2002; Carrell, Elbert, & Hatfield, 2000; Wexley & Latham, 1984). Perhaps the best
known evaluation methodology for judging training programs is Donald Kirkpatrick's Four Level
Evaluation Model that was first published in a series of articles in 1959 in the Journal of
American Society of Training Directors (now known as T+D Magazine). However his best
known work is the 1994 edition of Evaluating Training Programs. All models or careful
discussions about the design of training and learning programs converge on several factors:
confirming a need for learning, identifying the desired goals or objectives, selecting an
approach(es) to attain the objectives, conducting the training program or episode, and evaluating
the relative success of the training. While other factors are identified in various models, these
five steps emerge from the literature.

Step 1. Assess Needs

SYSTEMS MODEL FOR TRAINING AND LEARNING

A key determination in needs assessment, at any level, is whether there is gap between
the actual and the desired performance. Such gaps are called “performance gaps” or “learning
opportunities”. The gap is generally due to organizational changes or a mismatch between skills
and job requirements (“Is Training Ready to Become One of the Movers and Shakers”, 2005).
Training is one of the keys to filling performance gaps such as a skills gap. Needs assessment
allows the training manager to later set the training objectives by answering two very basic
questions: who, if anyone, needs training and what training is needed. Needs assessment, may
be conducted at three levels: organizational analysis, task analysis, and person analysis (Wexley
& Latham, 2002; Service Providers Offer Best Practices, 2005).
The assessment of development needs should result in a program of training approaches
somewhat individualized for each employee. An assessment of one retail supervisor may find
weaknesses in counseling employees and conducting performance appraisals. Another supervisor
may be strong at motivating employees but weak in dealing with scheduling . The training effort
should attempt to meet employees where they currently stand and address their individual needs
by identifying the gap between their current and future competencies.
Following an assessment of needs, and after a determination is made that training is the
appropriate approach, training objectives should be written. Training or learning objectives
should reflect the gap(s) identified and specify exactly what the participant should be able to do,
know, or think upon completion of training. Well-written objectives have three major benefits
(Carrell, Elbert, & Hatfield, 2000): 1) they help determine which methods are appropriate by
focusing on the areas of performance that need to change; 2) they clarify what is to be expected
of both the trainer and the participants; and 3) they provide a basis for post-training evaluation.
After a needs assessment has identified a performance gap and after objectives have been
set, the organization is ready to design the needed training program. The organization should be
careful to design, or purchase, a training program that will yield verifiable results; otherwise, the
large financial investment in training will not pay off. Employers should use the same business
standards for proving a need and purchasing that they would demand for other business
investments like buying a new machine or piece of property.
Training techniques, outsourced or conducted internally, may be used while employees
are either off the job or on the job (OJT). When choosing a training method the learning climate
of the workplace needs to be taken into account. Mentoring begins with a strong corporate
culture that everyone has something to teach, and everyone has something to learn (Emelo, 2011,
p.34). Companies such as Agilent, Yum!Brands, and McDonald’s, have strong mentoring
cultures and use mentoring in a variety of ways (Emelo, 2011). Agilent depends on offline
assistance by one person to another when making significant career transitions. Yum!Brands has
woven people development into all elements of its culture whereas McDonald’s offers an
internal, online, virtual mentoring program that employees can utilize at their pace for making
work connections.
Off the job training includes any form of training performed away from the employee's
immediate work area, either: 1) in-house programs that are conducted within the organization's
own training facility, by training specialists from HR, external consultants, or a mix); and 2) off-
site programs held elsewhere and sponsored by an educational institution, professional
association, government agency, or training consultant. We have traditionally thought that two-
thirds of what employees know about their jobs they learn informally on the job from the people
they work with. Formal training programs account for only one-third of learning (Stack, 1998).
On the job techniques, commonly referred to as OJT, typically involve job instruction
given by an employee's supervisor or an experienced co-worker. OJT is not limited to
nonmanagerial or front-line employees. Managers also learn by doing. OJT techniques enable
managers to practice management skills, make mistakes, and learn from their mistakes under the
guidance of an experienced, competent senior mentor. OJT methods include job rotation and
lateral promotion, job instruction training, apprentice training, committee assignments, coaching,
and mentoring (Carrell, Elbert, & Hatfield, 2000).
Mentor was the wise teacher asked to watch over Odysseus' son while Odysseus fought
in the Trojan War. Mentor gave support, guidance, and took a very special interest in the well-
being of his charge. Mentoring is a developmental partnership through which one person shares
knowledge, skills, information and perspective to foster the personal and professional growth of
someone [Link], we have come to know mentors as those who guide and nurture the career
growth of their junior "protégés”.
A mentor "shows the ropes" to the protégé. We all have a need for insight that is outside
of our normal life and educational experience. Many organizations have set up formal mentor
programs, often as part of their affirmative action or orientation efforts. Informal mentoring
relationships are based upon mutual judgments: the mentor must see promise of excellence in the
protégé and the protégé must have great respect for the experience and success of the mentor.
The effectiveness of formal, somewhat artificial, mentoring programs has not been established to
be the same as in the more natural informal relationships, where the mentor and protégé are
perhaps more genuinely committed to each other.
 Many observers recommend that companies foster a climate encouraging one-on-one
mentoring programs. They not only cost less in time and effort than creating a broad initiative
but also allow protégés to more easily identify someone with desired expertise (Pont, 2005).
One of the biggest problems with formal programs is they don't articulate this is a relationship
owned by the individuals, not the corporation (Jenkina, 2005).
Research indicates that there is now similarity in the mentoring relationships between the
genders if males and females have the same education. While there are still fewer women in top-
level management positions, and while cross-gender mentorships can be sensitive, top-
performing women are now as likely to be mentored as their male counterparts. Females and
males both report receiving more promotions, having higher incomes, and being more satisfied
with their pay and benefits than those who experience little or no mentoring (Dreher & Ash,
1990).
Yet, the controversial “glass ceiling” seems to remain in effect for racial minorities and
women at least in certain situations. David Thomas, at Harvard Business School, issued a report
called The Truth About Mentoring Minorities: Race Matters (Jenkina, 2005). Thomas studied the
progression of three major U.S. companies and found that promising whites fast-tracked early
and received early promotions while minorities' careers didn't take off until after they reached
middle management, assuming they remained in the corporate game. Thomas' research found
that those managers of color who advanced the most shared one characteristic: a strong network
of mentors and powerful corporate sponsors who offered long-term, close developmental
support. Similarly, a 2004 study (Jenkina, 2005) found 56% of female and 52% of male
executives named "having an influential mentor or sponsor" as an important or very important
success strategy. Yet, only 23% of women and 17% of men surveyed were satisfied with the
availability of mentors at their workplaces.
The fourth step in the training model is the implementation step. There are many
decisions, responsibilities, and details that go with the implementation of a training program.
Often training and learning departments use check-sheets to ensure that all supplies, and
technologies are available at the right place at the right time. When traditional models or
mentoring programs stumble, be prepared to adapt and make changes. One communications
company had to adapt its traditional one-on-one mentoring program because the workforce,
predominantly Generation Y employees, was not interested in structured mentoring and preferred
a reverse mentoring format when it came to sharing technology (Little, 2011).
The fifth step in the training model is evaluation. With over $171.5 billion a year spent
on formal training in the U.S. organizations rightfully are asking, “Are we getting our money's
worth?” One comprehensive evaluation strategy provides for four different levels of training
evaluation. Kirkpatrick advocates applying each level of his evaluation to every training and
learning program. It has become a best practice to follow his model and measure the trainees'
reaction, trainees' learning, change in trainees' behavior, and impact of the program on
organizational effectiveness (Kirkpatrick, 1994).

APPLYING THE TRAINING MODEL TO ERNST & YOUNG’S SITUATION

The performance gap identified at Ernst & Young and the steps that firm took present an
excellent example of the training model identified in this article.
Step 1: Assessing needs (Organizational level) at Ernst & Young. In 1996 Ernst &
Young was losing 22% of its women professionals annually and was spending $150,000 per job
to hire and train replacements who tended most often to be men. Further, clients were forced to
see different faces all the time. Reducing turnover was seen as a way to create a competitive
advantage in the industry.
About half of each new recruiting class at Ernst & Young was female. However in 1996
only 5% Ernst & Young's 2,760 partners were female. The industry standard of 8% was not very
high either, but was significantly higher than the partners reflected at Ernst & Young.
Step 2: Setting objectives at Ernst & Young. To remain competitive within the Big Four
Accounting firms Ernst & Young decided it needed to meet or exceed the industry standard for
having female partners. An underlying and related issue of high female turnover led the
company to set the objective of reducing turnover among women.
Step 3: Selecting Training Method at Ernst & Young. Chairman, Philip Laskawy, went
outside the firm and hired Deborah Holmes, a Harvard-educated former corporate lawyer and
consultant. Holmes conducted focus groups of 15 to 20 Ernst & Young employees. She found
that while only a few women knew what it took to make partner, most men did know. She
discovered that the very few women who had made partner had all aggressively sought out
mentoring from men. This finding led Holmes to introduce a mentoring program.
Sometimes the solutions to issues identified in a needs analysis are not accomplished
primarily by training. The turnover problem needed to be addressed directly through policies
and only secondarily through the training effort. Ernst & Young launched “client triage.'' where
partners explicitly consider demands on their staffers and costs of potential employee turnover in
assessing client profitability. This policy requires that they work with customers before projects
begin to develop clear mutual expectations about the staffing requirements. A “utilization
committee,'' composed of employees at all levels, meets regularly to reconcile client demands
with staffers' personal needs. While the mentor model of the 1980s emphasized a more
experienced adult passing on knowledge to a less experienced adult, today the mentor functions
as a learning facilitator rather than an authority figure (Zachary, 2009). Furthermore, critical
reflection and self-directed learning play an important part. Ground rules and confidentiality
safeguards were established as well as how obstacles and stumbling blocks would be addressed.
Step 4: Conducting training at Ernst & Young. They followed a best practice in training
by first launching a pilot mentoring program for women in just one region. Once it appeared
successful this program was then rolled out nationwide. There are two tracks: one program for
women with more than five years' experience, and one for women with less.
Ernst & Young’s best practices include: 1) not forcing anyone to become a mentor,
instead they volunteer their time. When you force someone to be a mentor, says Holmes, “You
get a crummy mentor.” 2) Your boss cannot become your mentor, otherwise certain crucial
subjects can’t be discussed. 3) Protégés typically choose their mentors. 4) At confidential
mentoring meetings any topic is fair game: career, problems with managers, work-life balance,
etc. 5) Mentors introduce protégés to other learning facilitators and to senior leaders when
appropriate (Boyle, 2005).
Step 5: Evaluating training at Ernst & Young. There are excellent training metrics in this
illustration which line up well with the two objectives set by Ernst & Young . In 1996, women
made up 7% of Ernst & Young's partners, principals and directors. That number rose to 15% in
2002. The promotion rate for women at the partner level more than doubled, from 12% to 25%,
in that period (Raghunathan, 2003). The percentage of women partners had risen to 13% by
2005. (In 2004 competitors Deloitte & Touche had 16.3%, KPMG had 13%, and
PricewaterhouseCoopers had 12.7% women partners (McGregor, 2004)). The overall retention
rate for Ernst & Young started improving in the first year after the changes. Better retention of
women in the last several years is calculated to be saving the firm $10 million annually.
Over the last five years, the Big Four accounting firms have made changes aimed at
keeping more of their highly skilled staff ---- mentoring programs, reduced work hours, advisory
councils, women's networks. In statistics comparable to those at Ernst & Young, Deloitte &
Touche says the gender gap in turnover has been eliminated and the overall turnover has dropped
by more than 10 percent. These initiatives have landed the Big Four - Ernst & Young,
PriceWaterhouseCoopers, KPMG and Deloitte & Touche -- on the Working Mother magazine
list of 100 Best Companies for Working Mothers (Goodman, 2005).
This intrusion of new needs illustrates the ever changing landscape within the training
and learning environment. The final step of training evaluation is not really a final step at all.
Rather, it serves as part of the needs analysis in the next iteration of training design and planning.
This makes the Ernst & Young an excellent example at all stages of the learning and
development systems model.

REFERENCES

Alvarez, K, E. Salas, & C. M. Garofano (2004). An integrated model of training evaluation and
effectiveness. Human Resource Development Review. 3(4), 385-417.

Boyle, M. (2005). Most mentoring programs stink: But yours doesn't have to. Training, 42(8),
12-15.

Carrell, M., N. Elbert, & R. Hatfield (2000). Human resource management: Strategies for
managing a diverse and global workforce. Fort Worth, TX: The Dryden Press.

Dreher, G. & R. Ash, (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in
managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology 75 539–546.

Emelo, Randy, (2011). Conversations With Mentoring Leaders. T+D. June 2011, 32-37.

FAST FACT, (2011). T+D, ASTD Research, July, 21.

Filipczak, B. (1997). Taboo Training Terms. Training 34(3), 36.

Goodman, C. K. (2005, June 22). The Miami Herald Balancing Act column, Knight Ridder
Tribune Business News, 1.

Green, Michael & Erin McGill (2011). The 2011 State of the Industry Report. T+D, November
2011, 45-50.

Hadfield-Law, L. (2002). Teaching a practical skill. Training & Management Development

Is training ready to become one of the movers & shakers? (2005) Managing Training &
Development, 5(4), 1-12.

Jenkina, M. (2005). Why you need a mentor. Black Enterprise, 35(8) 00064165.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating Training Programs. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler

Little, Bobbie. (2011, June) Mentoring for the Millenials. T+D Magazine, 80

McGregor, J., (2004) Balance & balance sheets. Fast Company, 82 10859241.

Noe, R. A. (2005). Employee training and development (Third Edition) Boston, MA: McGraw-
Hill/Irwin.

Raghunathan, A. (2003, Feb 2) Studies of Financial Services Job Sector Find Mixed News for
Female Executives. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, 1.

Service providers offer best practices and cost reduction (2005). Managing Training &
Development, 5(4), 8.

Stack, J. (1998, August). The Training Myth, Inc. 41.

Walker, L.A. & R. Krueger (2002). Identifying and addressing training needs for ISO 9001:2000
Quality Congress. ASQ's Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, 279-284.

Wexley, K. N. & G. P. Latham (2002). Developing and training human resources (Third
Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wexley, K. N. & G. P. Latham (1981). Developing and training human resources. Glenview,
IL: Scott, Foresman.

Zachary, Lois J., (2009, Dec.).“Make Mentoring Work For You: Ten Strategies For Success.”
T+D Magazine, December, 76.