Identify Barriers to Completing Mandatory Employee Training

Many K-12 schools, colleges, and universities require employees to complete training on risk management topics, sometimes disciplining employees who fail to complete. And yet, institutions can’t assume that even labeling a training as “mandatory” will mean everyone completes it. Employees who fail to complete training may reduce overall campus safety while increasing the institution’s liability exposure and jeopardizing its compliance. For example, many United Educators (UE) member claims involve an employee who didn’t complete training that was, or should have been, required.

Use the following questions to help identify systemic barriers to completing mandatory employee training and determine ways to overcome them.

What situations allow employees to bypass mandatory training?

Training administrators often assign training at a specific time, such as upon hire or the start of a semester. They then set a deadline and send reminders as it approaches. While that practice seems like it should capture everyone, some situations can allow employees to bypass required training.

• Grandfathering current employees — Some institutions will add training during new employee onboarding, effectively allowing current employees to bypass a training requirement. Internal hires might miss role-specific training if it’s only included in new employee onboarding.
• Long-term leave — An employee who takes long-term leave, like a sabbatical or parental leave, might miss a training deadline if they’re away when training administrators send reminders and enforce discipline.

Extend new onboarding training to all employees and evaluate training needs for internal hires, as well as external. Proactively assess which mandatory trainings an employee misses while on leave and adjust deadlines on their return.

Which training requirements aren’t being enforced, and why?

Many institutions enforce training completion with tactics like ineligibility for pay increases, lost professional opportunities, IT system lockouts, and termination. However, organizational dynamics sometimes interfere with enforcement.

• Decentralization — At decentralized institutions, central administration might lack practical authority to enforce discipline in some parts of campus. In other cases, semi-independent departments like Athletics or Academic Affairs manage their own training requirements with different or less enforcement.
• Supervisor turnover — Training requirements can get lost in the shuffle of supervisor turnover. New or acting supervisors may not know the training calendar or pursue other priorities as they get up to speed.
• Leadership reluctance — When senior leadership hasn’t bought into training requirements, they might exempt themselves or others, assuming no one will discipline them. In other cases, leadership chooses not to enforce discipline out of a fear of losing key employees, especially in periods of labor market stress.

Establish authority for enforcing training requirements in a department like Human Resources, Compliance, Risk Management, or another team focused on organizational development. A centralized approach can ease supervisors’ enforcement responsibility and issue discipline consistently.

How can we require training before someone needs it for new or unusual responsibilities?

Campus employees have an evolving set of responsibilities and opportunities that don’t always match their title or job description. These roles can call for employees to manage unfamiliar risks before they complete training.

Responsibilities outside the job description — Employees can take on risky activities outside their usual duties, like an admission counselor driving a utility vehicle during open houses, an employee participating in a summer camp with minors, or a faculty member leading an overseas trip.

New and acting supervisors — A supervisor may need to respond to employment risks from the start of their tenure. If they suddenly gain supervisory responsibilities through promotion or acting status, they may not have been trained to seek help implementing their institution’s employment policies.

Ideally, your institution could identify these situations in advance and offer comprehensive training, but they can arise unexpectedly. Asynchronous training programs can teach risk management basics before employees can complete a full training curriculum. Consider online training programs — like those in UE’s online training catalogue — written manuals, or video recordings so employees can train on Day 1 or even before.

How can we design more engaging training?

Even though many employees resist training — especially when they view it as boring, disconnected from job responsibilities, or overly conceptual — surveys show employees want training. Years of check-the-box trainings have conditioned some employees to assume “required” means unengaging, ineffective, or irrelevant.

When designing or evaluating new training programs, collaborate across functions like risk management, compliance, human resources, communications, and talent development to find ways for training to bring value to the employee, not just the institution. Add interactivity or mixed media to training programs to keep employees’ attention. When possible, integrate compliance and risk management guidance into the professional development training that they seek for their growth.

While it may be unrealistic to expect employees to want to complete mandatory risk management training, consistently implementing meaningful trainings can overcome employees’ initial resistance and gradually increase completion rates over time.

More From UE

Training Faculty on Sexual Misconduct

UE’s Online Training Library

Additional Resources

Forbes: From Fatigue To Engagement — Realizing The Potential Of Compliance Training