Training Is Not Enough: Why Sri Lanka's Construction Industry Is Getting Learning and Development Wrong
Image 1 — A toolbox talk on a construction site in Bosnia: workers lined up, supervisor briefing the team before the shift begins. The talk happens. But does the learning?
Introduction
Every construction site in Sri Lanka has a safety file on the premises. However, many are left gathering dust.
I have sat through many toolbox talks, all of which I have since forgotten. A foreman will read from a laminated page to a group of workers, they will nod in agreement and 15 minutes later the workers would resume exactly what they were doing prior to the talk taking place. The talk had happened, the learning had not. And this is not limited to safety — it is a fundamental HRM failure.
One of the most useful tools a business possesses is learning and development. For Sri Lanka's construction industry it is one of the most poorly utilised.
What Actually Is Learning and Development?
Armstrong (2020) defines L&D as a strategic process designed to enhance individual capability and drive organisational performance. It is not the undertaking of training sessions — it is about behaviour change.
Henderson (2017) draws a clear distinction between old-style personnel management — which treated training as a cost — and modern HRM, which treats it as a strategic investment. Throughout much of Sri Lanka's construction contracting sector, there still exists an attitude that training should only happen once a worker has already had an accident. Not before.
Why Our Training Methods Are Failing
Kolb (1984) explains this clearly through his Experiential Learning Cycle. According to Kolb (1984), real learning requires four stages — Concrete Experience, Reflection, Conceptualisation and Active Experimentation. A ten minute toolbox talk that fails to demonstrate, discuss or follow up satisfies none of these stages. It is a transmission of information rather than a process of learning.
Figure 1 — Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle (1984): Real learning requires all four stages. A ten minute briefing satisfies none of them. (Source: Psychologs.com)
Video 1 — Kolb's Learning Cycle Explained
Source: YouTube
Kirkpatrick (1994) adds another dimension. His four level evaluation model assesses training from the perspectives of reaction, learning, behaviour change and results. In most construction sites throughout Sri Lanka, training is never evaluated beyond attendance. Whether behaviour actually changed on site the following day — nobody checks.
Video 2 — Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Training Evaluation
Source: YouTube
The Sri Lanka Reality
The ILO (2023) reports that South Asian construction sectors invest significantly below global averages in workforce training. In Sri Lanka, higher worker turnover — particularly the movement of skilled workers to the Middle East — breeds a certain cynicism regarding any investment in training.
But untrained workers cause accidents. Accidents cause delays. Delays cost far more than any training programme ever would. A significant proportion of construction site incidents across Sri Lanka are linked directly to inadequate training and poor safety awareness. The false economy of skipping L&D is costing the industry far more than it saves.
.jpg)
Image 2 — Construction team inside a tunnel site with full PPE: in high risk environments like this, untrained workers are not just less productive — they are a danger to everyone around them.
A Fair Criticism
To be balanced — real training on a live construction site is not always straightforward. Production pressure and project deadlines are genuine constraints. Garavan et al. (2012) acknowledge the difficulties of making the financial case for training investment in developing economies. Smaller Sri Lankan contractors may simply not have the capacity for formal programmes.
However, this argument is hardly acceptable for larger contractors, government projects and multinational firms. Training does not have to stop production. A well structured toolbox talk — with demonstration, discussion and a simple competency check — takes around twenty minutes. Done consistently, it builds a learning culture that protects workers and improves productivity over the longer term.
Conclusion
Sri Lanka's construction industry will not solve its skills crisis through imported foreign labour. It will solve it by investing seriously in the workforce already on site.
Learning and development in construction is not optional — it is a safety obligation. An untrained worker is not just unproductive. On a live site, they are a risk to themselves and to everyone around them. The toolbox talks that are currently changing nothing need to start changing everything. That shift begins with HR treating L&D as strategic necessity — not administrative paperwork.
References
Armstrong, M. (2020) Armstrong's Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice. 15th edn. London: Kogan Page.
Garavan, T.N., Carbery, R. and Rock, A. (2012) 'Mapping talent development: definition, scope and architecture', European Journal of Training and Development, 36(1), pp. 5–24.
Henderson, I. (2017) Human Resource Management for MBA and Business Masters. 3rd edn. London: CIPD Kogan Page.
ILO (2023) World Employment and Social Outlook: Trends 2023. Geneva: International Labour Organization.
Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1994) Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
The discussion is academically valuable due to the use of the theories like Kolb and Kirkpatrick. It would however be interesting to elaborate more on how the construction companies in Sri Lanka can adopt the proper learning techniques and at the same time be able to cope with time and project pressure.
ReplyDeleteThank you Umeash! That is exactly the challenge — balancing structured learning with production pressure. In my experience, the most practical approach is embedding learning into daily operations rather than treating it as a separate activity. A structured toolbox talk with demonstration and a quick competency check takes around twenty minutes and does not stop work. The key is consistency — done daily it becomes part of the site culture rather than an interruption to it.
DeleteInsightful article! It clearly shows that training alone isn’t enough without proper support, application, and alignment with organisational goals. Do you think combining training with continuous learning and performance-based incentives could make it more effective in the long run?
ReplyDeleteThank you Ashan! Absolutely — training in isolation rarely creates lasting behaviour change. As Kirkpatrick (1994) reminds us, the real measure of training effectiveness is not what workers learn in a session but how their behaviour changes on site afterwards. Combining training with continuous learning opportunities, regular feedback and performance-based recognition creates a much stronger foundation. On well-run multinational sites I have worked on, the most effective approach was exactly this — short focused training followed by on-the-job coaching, immediate feedback and recognition when safe behaviours were demonstrated consistently. That cycle of learning, application and recognition is what builds a genuine learning culture rather than just a training record.
DeleteStrong point, many construction firms treat training as a checkbox rather than real learning. If workers’ behavior does not improve after training, then it has failed. How can companies justify ignoring L&D when poor training directly leads to accidents and delays?
ReplyDeleteThank you Madavi! The checkbox mentality is perhaps the most expensive habit in the industry — because the cost of the accident that follows always exceeds the cost of the training that was skipped. The justification problem largely disappears when organisations start measuring what happens after training rather than just recording that it occurred. Attendance registers prove nothing. Behaviour on site the following week tells the real story.
Delete