Evaluating External Training Providers

"We brought in a trainer for two days and nothing changed." Of course it didn't. You treated training like a checkbox activity. Sales leaders constantly make this mistake: → Hire external trainer for 2-day workshop → Everyone gets excited during sessions → 30 days later, zero behavior change → "Training doesn't work" Wrong. Your approach to training doesn't work. Here's what actually happens: Day 1: Reps are pumped. Taking notes. Asking questions. Day 2: Still engaged. Ready to implement everything. Day 30: Back to old habits. Zero retention. Why? Because you treated symptoms, not the disease. You didn't change their daily habits. You didn't provide ongoing reinforcement. You didn't build systems for accountability. Real training that creates lasting change looks different: #1 It's diagnostic first. Before any training, you identify specific skill gaps through call reviews, deal analysis, and performance data. Not generic "they need better discovery" but specific "they ask surface level pain questions but never uncover business impact." #2 It's delivered in sprints. Six weeks of twice-weekly sessions beats a 2-day workshop every time. Reps can practice between sessions, get feedback, and build muscle memory. #3 It includes reinforcement systems. Weekly coaching calls, peer practice sessions, and manager check-ins. The learning doesn't stop when the trainer leaves. #4 It measures behavior change, not satisfaction scores. "Did you like the training?" is worthless. "Are you now asking better discovery questions?" matters. #5 It provides job aids and frameworks. Reps need cheat sheets, email templates, and conversation guides they can reference in real situations. Most importantly: It's customized to your specific challenges, not generic sales advice. The companies that see 40%+ improvement in performance don't do one-off training events. They build learning into their culture. They have weekly skill-building sessions. They do call reviews with specific feedback. They practice objection handling until it's automatic. Stop buying training like it's a magic pill. Start building capability like it's a muscle that needs consistent exercise. Your reps deserve better than motivational speeches that wear off in a week. — Tired of wasted training budgets? I'll design a performance improvement system that actually creates lasting behavior change. Book a diagnostic: https://lnkd.in/ghh8VCaf

Only 10-15% of workforce training transfers to workplace practice: part 2. Here are themes from the comments to my previous post. The environment where learning lands dominated the comments. Reza Hosseini Ghomi, MD, MSE described teams leaving training energised only to return to unchanged incentives, no protected time & blame culture. Anthony Lawton talked about “the system eating the learning”. Ish Ahmed described how changing the conditions around a clinical service - not new training - moved performance from the 4th quartile nationally to the 1st. There was discussion about the “validity” of the “10-15% of workforce training transferring” statistic. A challenge by Dr. Jim Sellner, PhD. DipC. that the figure is an opinion & not evidence-based made me delve deeper & I couldn’t find an empirical basis for it in the quoted literature. However, Jim Campbell said it was consistent with findings in The Lancet of a 10% figure in healthcare workforce development. For me, the underlying message (that formal training alone has a significant transfer problem) still stands & is supported by the broader research literature regardless of the precise percentage. David Wylie & Stefan Powell named specific barriers. David raised "tall poppy syndrome": managers feeling threatened by team members developing capabilities beyond their own, leading to skills suppression. Stefan pointed to eroded line manager capacity — managers working more "in the business" than "on it," leaving little space to develop their people. Learning as an ongoing process, not a training event, was another big theme. Paul Jocelyn argued that using training to address performance problems is a limited lever & that L&D is structurally over-indexed as an intervention. John-Paul Crofton-Biwer stressed learning happens in the days & weeks after training - testing whether what people are being asked to do actually fits their work. Callum Brown described the 70:20:10 model & argued the best time for improvement training is when someone has a live project to consolidate skills. Dr Ian Thomson flipped this to 10:20:70 to reflect the transfer sequence & discussed the importance of define outcomes & behaviours before designing content. Paula Beattie included individual coaching as standard & used the Toyota A3 as a personal development instrument for each participant, with experimentation as the site of real learning. Helena Jackson, Ralph Talmont & Lesley Parkinson extended the conversation to varied methods (on the job practice, arts based approaches, micro learning over time) & the need to match delivery to busy realities. Across the comments, a consistent set of themes stand out: co design rather than top down training, coaching & feedback embedded into work, timing learning around real problems, supporting & equipping line managers, addressing cultural blockers & treating training as one element in a broader system of change rather than the primary solution. Thanks to all commenters.

Passing a test doesn’t mean performance improved. And yet, in L&D, we often act as if it does. We say: “the training was evaluated.” But if we look closer, what we actually evaluated was the learner. Quizzes. Tests. Certifications. All of that tells us something important. But it answers only one question: Did the learner understand the content? There is another question that is far more uncomfortable: Did the learning actually work? Did anything change in real work? Did behavior shift? Did performance improve? And even deeper: Was this learning intervention valid in the first place? Because here is the real risk: You can evaluate the learner perfectly… ✔ they pass the test ✔ they complete the course ✔ they demonstrate knowledge …but if the content is irrelevant, or the method is wrong, or the problem was misdiagnosed, this learning will not just fail. It can actively make performance worse. It can reinforce the wrong behaviors. It can create false confidence. It can waste time on the wrong priorities. That’s why learning evaluation is not about measuring learners. It is about validating the learning solution itself: → Is this the right intervention? → Does it address the real problem (correct diagnosis)? → Is it supported beyond training (reinforcement & application)? → Is it capable of influencing performance? Learner evaluation and learning evaluation can be connected. But they are not the same. And one does not guarantee the other. Strong learning design measures both: — what people know — and whether the solution actually works Because a well-measured learner in a poorly designed system is still a poor outcome. 👉 How do you validate that your learning actually improves performance, not just knowledge? #LearningDesign #LearningAndDevelopment #LND #InstructionalDesign #LearningStrategy #CorporateLearning #EdTech #Upskilling

Most training fails quietly... but not because people did not learn. Because the organisation never created the conditions for learning to survive operational reality. A recent study (Mehner et al., 2025) explored what actually determines whether workplace training turns into meaningful performance improvement. The answer was not course quality alone. It was the social system around the learner. The researchers found that... Supervisor support increased training transfer Peer support increased knowledge sharing Motivation alone was insufficient Volition, persisting through resistance and operational friction, mattered heavily Informal knowledge networks became critical after training One finding stood out to me... Employees who successfully transferred learning often expanded their internal knowledge networks afterwards. In other words: Capability development did not stop when the course ended...It accelerated through workplace relationships. That matters because many organisations still evaluate training as an isolated event: attendance completion satisfaction scores assessment pass rates But performance reliability is shaped afterwards: Can people apply the learning under pressure? Do managers reinforce it? Do peers support it? Is there psychological safety to experiment? Is knowledge shared across the system? Does the environment sustain behavioural execution? This is why two people can attend the same programme and produce completely different outcomes. The training may be identical...The surrounding conditions are not. Capability exists in the individual...Performance emerges from the system around them. Reference: Mehner, L., Rothenbusch, S., & Kauffeld, S. (2025). How to maximize the impact of workplace training: a mixed-method analysis of social support, training transfer and knowledge sharing. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology.

𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐁𝐫𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐧 — 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐌𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐑𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 A new 2025 study (Caterino et al., Procedia Computer Science) explored workforce training and performance assessment in manufacturing—and the results reveal both progress and gaps. 📊 Key Findings: 1️⃣ Training is essential — but inconsistent. Most programs are fragmented and not tied to performance. There’s no unified framework linking training, skills, and measurable outcomes. 2️⃣ Routine vs. Non-Routine Work matters.  • For repetitive tasks, performance improves naturally through learning curves—but often at the expense of well-being.  • For non-repetitive or problem-solving tasks, skills degrade without use. These roles need targeted, flexible training to prevent errors and quality issues. 3️⃣ Technology is shifting the game. VR supports early-stage training by letting workers safely practice complex tasks. AR helps experienced operators during real work, improving accuracy and retention. Game-based learning boosts engagement and adaptability. 4️⃣ Assessment is lagging behind. Most rely on subjective feedback instead of data. Yet metrics like completion time, error rate, quality, safety, and motivation already exist. Few evaluate training ROI, despite clear links to productivity and safety. 5️⃣ A framework was proposed. It uses performance thresholds to trigger training, matches the right method (VR, AR, OJT), and measures skills post-training to close the feedback loop. 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐎𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐞 Manufacturers invest in tech, but human capability remains the real limiter. Without connecting training to data, it’s impossible to know what works or where skills are slipping. Integrating training into production builds a living feedback loop that improves safety, quality, and adaptability. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐈/𝐎 𝐏𝐬𝐲𝐜𝐡𝐨��𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐇𝐞𝐥𝐩 I/O Psychology brings science to the system: 🔹 Job & Task Analysis — find where skills degrade fastest and training has most ROI. 🔹 Evidence-based Design — align methods with cognitive load and learner experience. 🔹 Performance Evaluation — use behavioral data, not just completion checkboxes. 🔹 Learning Transfer — sustain performance long after training ends. Technology can deliver information. But I/O Psychology turns that information into transformation — ensuring training changes behavior, drives performance, and keeps people safe in Industry 5.0. #WorkplaceEngineer #IOPsychology #ManufacturingExcellence #TrainingAndDevelopment #LearningThatSticks #HumanCenteredDesign #Industry50 #JobAnalysis #WorkforceDevelopment #VRTraining

One of the clearest takeaways from this paper is that training load should be understood as exposure, not just as a collection of numbers on a dashboard. That is a major shift in thinking. The authors argue that external load reflects what the athlete does, while internal load reflects the psychophysiological stress created by that work. That distinction matters because performance, readiness, fatigue, maladaptation, and injury risk are not driven by labels or metrics alone. They are driven by how the athlete is exposed to stress and how the body responds to it. The paper also makes the point that load measures should not be judged by how modern, complex, or impressive they look. They should be judged by whether they reflect a plausible mechanism tied to the outcome we actually care about. The part that stands out most to me is this: if we do not understand injury and fatigue in the context of exposure, then we are already behind in how we think about mitigation and intervention. Too often, injury gets treated as an isolated event, or fatigue gets treated as something to simply manage once it shows up. But this paper supports a more useful view. These outcomes need to be understood in relation to the training process that helps produce them. If injury and excessive fatigue are downstream of poorly understood or poorly managed exposure, then reacting only to the endpoint means we have missed the real leverage point. That leverage point is preparedness. It is the ability to shape exposure in a way that improves readiness while reducing the likelihood of maladaptation, excessive fatigue, and unnecessary injury risk. From my reading, two concepts deserve constant attention: • Dose: the amount of training stress that actually reaches or meaningfully interacts with the athlete • Dose response: the relationship between that stress and the outcome that follows If we understand those two concepts, we stop chasing injury in an ignorant, isolated way and start asking better questions: How much can this athlete tolerate? For how long? At what intensity? What type of exposure is producing the response we are seeing? That is a much better framework for decision making. It keeps the focus on modulating exposure to build readiness, rather than acting as though injury is just a passive event that appears without context. In many cases, the better path is not simply to chase the injured structure after the fact, but to understand the exposure patterns and tolerance limits that helped create the problem in the first place.

Harassment training completion rates look good — until you see the number of employee relations claims. Now, executives are asking tougher questions. There’s a disconnect between how HR teams measure training success and how leadership evaluates its impact. How HR typically measures training: • Completion rates • Satisfaction scores • Training hours logged • Content quality ratings • Engagement metrics How executives actually measure training: • Reduction in employee relations claims • Lower attrition and hiring costs • Fewer compliance violations • Improved team productivity • Tangible risk mitigation tied to business performance This gap isn’t just about language. It fundamentally changes how workplace training needs to be designed, delivered, and reported. At Emtrain, every program is built around a business outcome. We aren’t asking, “Did employees complete the training?” We’re asking, “Can we predict where the next employee relations complaint is likely to happen—and prevent it before it escalates?” Communicating value to leadership requires a different mindset. It’s not: "We achieved 95% completion on harassment training." It’s: "Our targeted training approach reduced investigation costs by 12% this quarter." It’s not: "Employees rated our DEI program 4.8/5." It’s: "Teams that completed our inclusion program saw 18% lower turnover than comparable groups." If you want your programs to survive—and matter—start by asking yourself three hard questions: • Can you clearly articulate which business problems your training solves? • Are you measuring real outcomes, not just participation? • Can executives see a direct connection between your programs and the company's financial health? In this economic environment, HR initiatives that can’t prove business impact won’t just struggle for budget—they’ll be first on the chopping block. If you’re not already connecting your training strategy to business outcomes, now is the time to start.