Training Program Effectiveness

Training and coaching programmes in many workplaces are often seen as one-size-fits-all solutions. Its time for that to change, especially when it comes to leadership development. Too often, learning and development initiatives are decided without involving the people who are not actually taking part in them. Organizations make huge investment into programmes, without effective research into people's needs. They don't ask people what they want or need. They presume everyone's needs are the same. There are times where this might be ok....specific technical skills for example or simple standard work practices. But leadership development requires a different approach. To be honest, I used to deliver one-day trainings on leadership skills here and there. But I never felt good about it. I felt like I wasn't adding real value to anyone. I knew most people were likely to forget everything they learned. It seems like such a waste of time and money. Now, I largely provide a blend of training and coaching programmes. They include an assessment of participant needs. They have a measure of individual development over time. Each person's coaching programme is tailored to what they need. I communicate with my programme participant's managers, to support the continuation of coaching long after their initial coaching programme ends. I always think I can do better so I gather feedback from every participant and improve my programmes all the time. These are the best practices guidelines I follow and teach: 1️⃣ Assess participant needs and customize programmes 2️⃣ Clarify the measures of effectiveness that will be used. 3️⃣ Personalize learning paths- this is possible through blending training with 1:1 coaching programmes 4️⃣ Foster a culture of continuous learning where coaching and training is part of what people regularly give and receive. Ensure all managers have effective coaching skills 5️⃣ Evaluate and adjust all training and coaching programmes. Make improvements based on feedback and measures. ❓What else would you add to ensure training and coaching programmes are highly effective? #learninganddevelopment #employeedevelopment #leadershipdevelopment #traininganddevelopment #training #learning #coaching

Most Train-the-Trainer programmes fail for one simple reason... Transfer is assumed, not designed. A new paper in the International Journal of Training and Development finally tackles a long-standing blind spot in L&D: 👉 How trainers themselves actually learn , and why that learning so often fails to show up in practice. Wisshak et al. (2025) propose a generic “offer-and-use” model for Train-the-Trainer programmes, adapted from teacher education and grounded in decades of transfer research. Training effectiveness is not determined by what is offered, but by how trainers perceive, interpret, and use learning opportunities within their real work context. The model highlights six interacting elements: • Training design & facilitation quality • Individual trainer factors (motivation, self-efficacy, prior knowledge) • Contextual factors (support, culture, opportunity to apply) • Perceived relevance and engagement • Actual learning processes • Outcomes, with transfer (behaviour change) as the non-negotiable criterion What I find particularly important is this: Many trainers are self-employed or freelance, yet most transfer models assume a supportive organisation, manager reinforcement, and stable teams. This paper explicitly addresses that mismatch, suggesting peer networks, follow-ups, feedback loops, and deliberate transfer scaffolding. Implication for L&D: If your Train-the-Trainer programme is evaluated mainly on satisfaction scores or content coverage, you are measuring the least predictive indicators of success. Transfer isn’t a phase. It’s a system property.

📈 Unlocking the True Impact of L&D: Beyond Engagement Metrics 🚀 I am honored to once again be asked by the LinkedIn Talent Blog to weigh in on this important question. To truly measure the impact of learning and development (L&D), we need to go beyond traditional engagement metrics and look at tangible business outcomes. 🌟 Internal Mobility: Track how many employees advance to new roles or get promoted after participating in L&D programs. This shows that our initiatives are effectively preparing talent for future leadership. 📚 Upskilling in Action: Evaluate performance reviews, project outcomes, and the speed at which employees integrate their new knowledge into their work. Practical application is a strong indicator of training’s effectiveness. 🔄 Retention Rates: Compare retention between employees who engage in L&D and those who don’t. A higher retention rate among L&D participants suggests our programs are enhancing job satisfaction and loyalty. 💼 Business Performance: Link L&D to specific business performance indicators like sales growth, customer satisfaction, and innovation rates. Demonstrating a connection between employee development and these outcomes shows the direct value L&D brings to the organization. By focusing on these metrics, we can provide a comprehensive view of how L&D drives business success beyond just engagement. 🌟 🔗 Link to the blog along with insights from other incredible L&D thought leaders (list of thought leaders below): https://lnkd.in/efne_USa What other innovative ways have you found effective in measuring the impact of L&D in your organization? Share your thoughts below! 👇 Laura Hilgers Naphtali Bryant, M.A. Lori Niles-Hofmann Terri Horton, EdD, MBA, MA, SHRM-CP, PHR Christopher Lind

Demonstrating the value of learning is easier than you think! In a recent workshop with The Institute for Transfer Effectiveness, I demonstrated how! One workshop participant was designing safety training to help employees use Microsoft 365 strategically to prevent data breaches. She was struggling to capture the value of the program for organizational leaders to understand. I used an alignment framework that incorporates Rob Brinkerhoff’s 6 L&D value propositions and mapped out how to connect her learning program with metrics that matter to organizational leaders. Here’s what that looked like! Aligning learning activities, initiatives or programs to strategic business outcomes is like looking for the through line between disparate things: learning, human performance, departmental key performance indicators, and organizational metrics. This can feel nearly impossible. The glue that holds these seemingly disparate things together are Brinkerhoff’s 6 L&D value propositions. In the safety training example we started by identifying the most relevant value proposition for the program. In this case, it was Regulatory Requirements: a learning program designed to ensure employees are complying with industry specific rules and regulations. Then we connect the L&D value proposition (Regulatory Requirements) with the most relevant outcome for the organization. In this case, it was Net Profit. If employees are complying with industry-specific rules and regulations, this consistent practice will save the organization money in fines, lawsuits, or dealing with the unpleasant consequences of safety challenges (like a data breach). Then we must do the hard work unpacking what people will be doing to support the targeted departmental KPIs. If you’re struggling to figure out the KPIs, you’ll likely find them by asking department leaders what problem they are experiencing on a regular basis that they would like solved. In this case it was too many data breaches and too many outdated files on the server causing misinformation and inconsistent practices. I discovered that what people could be doing differently to support the desired KPIs was adhering to updated protocols on how to manage data and documents within the 365 suite. If people followed the protocols with 100% fidelity, departments would experience a reduction in data breaches. Now … we have the behaviors to target in our training program and the data to use to show the value of learning: Learning metrics: Training attendance and completion rates. Capability metrics: Percentage of fidelity to data and document protocols before and after training. KPI metrics: # of documents on the server that are outdated (being at 20% of lower), # of data breaches per department being at 1 or less annually. Organizational metric: Net Profit How will you use the 6 L&D value propositions and alignment framework to tell your learning value story? #learninganddevelopment #trainingstrategy #datastrategy

*** SPOILER *** Some early data from our 2025 LEADx Leadership Development Benchmark Report that I’m too eager to hold back: MOST leadership development professionals DO NOT MEASURE LEVELS 3&4 of the Kirkpatrick model (behavior change & impact). 41% measure level 3 (behavior change) 24% measure level 4 (impact) Meanwhile, 92% measure learner reaction. I mean, I know learner reaction is easier to measure. But if I have to choose ONE level to devote my time, energy, and budget to… And ONE level to share with senior leaders… I’m at LEAST choosing behavior change! I can’t help but think: If you don’t measure it, good luck delivering on it. 🤷♂️ This is why I always advocate to FLIP the Kirkpatrick Model. Before you even begin training, think about the impact you want to have and the behaviors you’ll need to change to get there. FIRST, set up a plan to MEASURE baseline, progress, and change. THEN, start training. Begin with the end in mind! ___ P.S. If you can’t find the time or budget to measure at least level 3, you probably want to rethink your program. There might be a simple, creative solution. Or, you might need to change vendors. ___ P.P.S EXAMPLE SIMPLE WAY TO MEASURE LEVELS 3&4 Here’s a simple, data-informed example: You want to boost team engagement because it’s linked to your org’s goals to: - improve retention - improve productivity You follow a five-step process: 1. Measure team engagement and manager effectiveness (i.e., a CAT Scan 180 assessment). 2. Locate top areas for improvement (i.e., “effective one-on-one meetings” and “psychological safety”). 3. Train leaders on the top three behaviors holding back team engagement. 4. Pull learning through with exercises, job aids, monthly power hours to discuss with peers and an expert coach. 5. Re-measure team engagement and manager effectiveness. You should see measurable improvement, and your new focus areas for next year. We do the above with clients every year... ___ P.P.S. I find it funny that I took a lot of heat for suggesting we flip the Kirkpatrick model, only to find that most people don’t even measure levels 3&4…😂

You cannot design effective training… if you don’t understand behavior change. Because learning alone doesn’t change behavior. Systems do. One of the most important things instructional designers need to understand is this: Behavior is shaped by the environment people work inside. Things like: • workflows • tools • incentives • feedback • job aids • system constraints These elements influence what people actually do far more than a course. That’s why strong instructional designers start by asking: What is preventing the right behavior right now? Sometimes the answer is a skill gap. But often it’s something else: • confusing processes • missing tools • unclear expectations • lack of feedback • poorly designed systems When you understand behavior change, your design approach changes. Instead of just building courses, you start designing performance systems that include: • practice environments • job aids • decision support • coaching systems • workflow guidance This is the mindset we teach inside IDOL Academy. Because instructional design isn’t about delivering content. It’s about improving performance in the real world. Curious: What’s a time when training didn’t actually solve the problem?

Training shouldn’t be a checkbox. It should change behavior, build culture, and drive business results. After 20+ years in HR, I saw the same problem over and  over again: companies investing in training that never leads  to real change. According to research from Harvard Business Review,  here’s what separates effective training from wasted time: 1. Start with a baseline You can’t improve what you don’t measure.  Track where people are before you begin. 2. Connect training to business goals If it doesn’t support a real outcome, it’s just noise. 3. Involve managers Employees apply what they see reinforced.  That starts with leadership. 4. Track behavior, not just completion Finishing a course doesn’t mean the learning stuck.  Look for what changed afterward. 5. Collect feedback continuously Don’t assume it’s working.  Ask, adjust, and evolve. This is what we build our programs around. Because I don’t believe in training for the sake of it.  I believe in learning that sticks, and makes people better at what they do.

🎯 Key highlights of a study from the Economics of Education Review that looks at how continuous work-related training impacts people's careers in Switzerland🇨🇭. 📘 The research is important because it uses detailed government data on both education and employment over several years to get a very clear picture of the effects. It helps us understand if training truly leads to better job outcomes and who benefits the most, especially in a country with a lot of adult training but little government regulation. 🔍 Purpose & Relevance: - Investigates how CET impacts earnings and unemployment risk. - Uses Swiss data, where adult education is largely privately organized—offering insights relevant to liberal labour markets like those in Anglo-Saxon countries. - Highly relevant for policymakers, employers, and VET practitioners seeking evidence-based strategies to upskill the workforce. 🎯 Key Themes & Takeaways: 💼 Labour Market Outcomes of CET: - CET increases annual earnings by 3.4% on average. - Reduces unemployment risk by 2.1 percentage points—nearly halving the baseline rate. - Shortens unemployment spells by up to 0.17 months. 📊 Methodology Strength: - Uses regression-adjusted matched difference-in-differences with entropy balancing. - Controls for selection bias and pre-treatment trends—enhancing causal credibility. 👥 Effect Heterogeneity: - Strongest earnings gains for low-income workers (8.1% in the lowest tercile). - Unemployment risk reduction most pronounced among high-income earners. - Vocationally trained workers benefit from both higher earnings and lower unemployment—highlighting VET’s dual dividend. 🎓 VET & Skills Focus: - Vocational education emerges as a key driver of CET effectiveness. - Even short, non-formal courses (avg. 48 hours) yield measurable returns. - Employer-financed training (78% of cases) plays a pivotal role—suggesting firms recognize CET’s productivity value. 📉 Limitations & Cautions: - Effects may be understated due to conditioning on pre-treatment income. - Results may not generalize to state-funded or highly regulated labour markets. - Non-work-related training shows negligible labour market impact—reinforcing the importance of vocational intent. 🧠 Final Thought: This study reinforces the strategic value of VET and CET in modern labour markets. It’s not just about formal qualifications—targeted, work-related training can be a powerful lever for economic mobility and resilience. #LifelongLearning #VocationalTraining #SkillsDevelopment #AdultEducation Stefan Denzler Jens Ruhose Stefan Wolter EfVET European Association of Institutes for Vocational Training (EVBB) European Vocational Training Association - EVTA EURASHE eucen EUproVET EU Employment and Skills Cedefop European Training Foundation WorldSkills International OECD Education and Skills SEPIE - Servicio Español para la Internacionalización de la Educación International Labour Organization IEFP - Instituto do Emprego e Formação Profissional

The best training programs break three sacred HR rules. While most HR teams focus on completion rates and satisfaction scores, high-ROI learning experiences deliberately ignore these metrics. They measure behavior change at 30, 60, and 90 days instead of smile sheets at day one. Here's what's actually happening: Companies are throwing billions at learning programs that never stick. The "Great Training Robbery" study proves what many suspected all along. But here's the real problem. We're designing backwards. → Measuring engagement instead of application → Tracking completion rather than competency → Celebrating attendance over actual outcomes The organisations getting results? They flip this completely. Start with the business goal. Work backwards to the behavior change needed. Then design the learning experience. Simple. Instead of "Did people enjoy the session?" they ask "Can our people perform differently now?" This shift shows up in real numbers. Companies measuring behavioural change report 25% higher performance improvements compared to traditional training metrics. For HR teams, this means stepping away from being the completion rate police. Start being the performance change architect instead. Your learning budget is too valuable for vanity metrics. What are you actually measuring in your training programs?

I analyzed 7019 training sessions to identify the “sweet spot” on maximizing your training budget. 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺: Actionable.co is a training sustainment platform, specifically focused on measuring the behavior change impact of corporate learning programs. For this analysis, I pulled data from the 7019 training sessions that were run over the last 3 years, consisting of 2 – 100 participants. 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀: A couple assumptions are baked into this analysis: 1. The purpose of training is to drive change. In the case of the data leveraged here, that’s certainly the case (consultants only use Actionable when the goal is to drive behavior change)., If your goal is NOT to drive change with your program, you can stop reading now. The results won’t be useful. 2. Self-reported behavior change has value. It’s not conclusive, and it’s not exhaustive. It is, however, the earliest impact data we can capture (before 360s/KPIs, etc.) and – in our experience – is typically highly accurate as a leading indicator. If you don’t believe self-reported data has value then, again, these results won’t be useful to you. 𝗖𝗮𝗹𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀: To determine total cost for a session, I made a couple assumptions: - $5000 for the facilitator (fixed cost) - $1500 in labour costs for logistics and planning (fixed cost) - I assumed a half-day session (4 hours) x an average hourly wage of $50/participant. - Assumed a blanket “materials” cost of $50pp. - I assumed this was virtual (no travel costs, meals, per diem, etc.) To calculate impact, I looked at two factors: - The percentage of attendees who committed to changing a behavior after the session - The self-reported improvement in said behavior. - I multiplied these two elements together (% of people committing to change x realized change) to create an Aggregate Cohort “Efficacy Score" score (displayed in the graph) 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘀 (𝗶𝗻 2 𝗳𝗹𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗿𝘀):   𝗜𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 #1: 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗠𝗮𝘅𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 If you want to maximize impact, focus on smaller groups. Group sizes of 2-7 participants consistently generate 33% greater impact than groups of 8-14. Now, the per-person cost on the smaller groups is > $1000. So, the nature of the change needs to be considered, obviously. But, for topics that have a greater than $1000/person impact to the business, this feels like a bit of a no brainer. Break a group of 12 in half, if you can afford it. 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 #2: 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗠𝗮𝘅𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝗕𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝘁 If you want to stretch your budget further, focus on groups of 18-24 participants. Your cost per person goes by 50%pp (~$525pp vs >$1000pp) while your aggregate impact only decreases by ~30%. No, it’s not as impactful on a per-person basis, but it stretches your dollar further. Like most things, the decision on the optimal group size is dependent on your goals.