Why Organisations Don't Measure Training Application

Almost every L&D professional is taught the Kirkpatrick model of measuring training effectiveness.

The model looks simple:

1. Ask participants whether they liked the training.
2. Check whether they learned or remembered something.
3. Measure whether they applied it at work.
4. Measure the business impact.

The problem begins at Level 4.

You cannot say that revenue increased because of one training programme.

People understand this. That is why most organisations quietly stop measuring training impact.

So, if you cannot measure the impact of training on revenue, should you continue measuring whether participants liked the content, trainer and facilities?

Absolutely not.

Those scores measure the training experience. They do not measure whether the training changed anything at work.

If HR wants to measure training properly, it should work with the participants' managers before the training and ask a much simpler question:

What exact behaviours and actions should these employees start showing after the training?

The answer should be specific and observable.

For example:

• A salesperson visits one more customer every day.
• A salesperson opens a customer call by asking for the customer's view.
• A manager holds one coaching conversation every week.
• A team leader asks for a dissenting opinion before making an important decision.
• A project manager clarifies roles and responsibilities at the start of every project.
• A leader gives timely feedback instead of waiting for the annual review.

These are actions that people can take. Managers can observe them. Systems can track them. Participants can confirm whether they completed them.

There is another reason organisations avoid measuring application. They are afraid that if participants do not apply the training, HR or the trainer will look bad.

I disagree.

The responsibility for applying the training belongs to the individual. Once people have received the required capability, they are responsible for using it in their work.

The real problem is that, in most organisations, nobody has clearly agreed on what participants are expected to do after the training.

An expectation that was never clearly communicated cannot be measured.

There is one important distinction that HR must understand. A missing behaviour can come from a skill problem or a will problem.

Training cannot create the intent or will to act.

If people understand the behaviour, have received the required training and know what is expected from them, but still do not take action, the problem is no longer with the trainer. It is a management problem.

Did the participant accept the action? Did they complete it? Did they repeat it? Did the manager observe any change? Where did the action stop?

Training man-days are much easier to measure.

Less than 20% of classroom training gets applied on the job. Everyone in the business knows this. Employees often treat training as a break from regular work. HR treats it as a tick-box activity. The organisation records attendance and participation, then moves on to the next programme.

It is like saying:

I spent five days learning why I should go to the gym, how exercise works and why fitness matters. I never actually went to the gym.

The activity was completed. The outcome was not.

Almost every L&D professional is taught the Kirkpatrick model of measuring training effectiveness.

The model looks simple:

1. Ask participants whether they liked the training.
2. Check whether they learned or remembered something.
3. Measure whether they applied it at work.
4. Measure the business impact.

The problem begins at Level 4.

You cannot say that revenue increased because of one training programme.

People understand this. That is why most organisations quietly stop measuring training impact.

So, if you cannot measure the impact of training on revenue, should you continue measuring whether participants liked the content, trainer and facilities?

Absolutely not.

Those scores measure the training experience. They do not measure whether the training changed anything at work.

If HR wants to measure training properly, it should work with the participants' managers before the training and ask a much simpler question:

What exact behaviours and actions should these employees start showing after the training?

The answer should be specific and observable.

For example:

• A salesperson visits one more customer every day.
• A salesperson opens a customer call by asking for the customer's view.
• A manager holds one coaching conversation every week.
• A team leader asks for a dissenting opinion before making an important decision.
• A project manager clarifies roles and responsibilities at the start of every project.
• A leader gives timely feedback instead of waiting for the annual review.

These are actions that people can take. Managers can observe them. Systems can track them. Participants can confirm whether they completed them.

There is another reason organisations avoid measuring application. They are afraid that if participants do not apply the training, HR or the trainer will look bad.

I disagree.

The responsibility for applying the training belongs to the individual. Once people have received the required capability, they are responsible for using it in their work.

The real problem is that, in most organisations, nobody has clearly agreed on what participants are expected to do after the training.

An expectation that was never clearly communicated cannot be measured.

There is one important distinction that HR must understand. A missing behaviour can come from a skill problem or a will problem.

Training cannot create the intent or will to act.

If people understand the behaviour, have received the required training and know what is expected from them, but still do not take action, the problem is no longer with the trainer. It is a management problem.

Did the participant accept the action? Did they complete it? Did they repeat it? Did the manager observe any change? Where did the action stop?

Training man-days are much easier to measure.

Less than 20% of classroom training gets applied on the job. Everyone in the business knows this. Employees often treat training as a break from regular work. HR treats it as a tick-box activity. The organisation records attendance and participation, then moves on to the next programme.

It is like saying:

I spent five days learning why I should go to the gym, how exercise works and why fitness matters. I never actually went to the gym.

The activity was completed. The outcome was not.