Maximizing Training ROI:
Don’t Boil the Ocean Boil a Few Applied Learning Teacups

“Dear Employer: Thank you for paying for me to attend the training course – it was a nice break away from the office. Sadly, that’s about all it was – a break from routine. Honestly, I was really hoping my boss would give me a chance to ‘try out’ what I learned on the job – at least once! So, I’m leaving, and I can’t wait to find a company that will actually and ‘seriously’ let me use the training; to stretch me, challenge me to learn more, grow, and improve.”

Just to be clear at the outset of this blog.

• ROI = Return on Investment
• Investment = Money and Time
• Time = Cost
• Return = The company gets something of value back from their investment
• Boil the Ocean = Trying to make a system or process do too much at one time
• Teacup = Doing one or two small but important things that are critical to ROI

Let me say upfront, that my opinion and approach in this article is NOT permeated with academic, theoretical, or impractical concepts and themes. And I don’t by any means cover all the issues related to training ROI. My thinking and approach are born out of more than 40 years of designing, developing, delivering, and assessing learning of all kinds – as a corporate executive, a low-mid-level trainer, or as a passionate HR/T&D professional – in 43 countries.

It is presented out of a deep need – a plea, actually – for us to somehow discover how to deliver training that ‘scratches the right organizational and individual itches’. This blog is based on painful experience from trying to ‘boil the ocean’, and not effectively boiling a few teacups that people can learn and benefit from – practically. My simple approach may disappoint some and frustrate others – but it may also, very well, put a simple tool in your hands that helps you boil teacups of training excellently.

You know how it works. The company invests time and money in developing its people, and then hopes and expects those invested in will become smarter, better, more committed, and more productive employees. AND also love the company’s commitment to them so much, and they derive so much pleasure in being able to use their knowledge, skills, and abilities, that they stay longer and are more committed.

Nice theory. Noble idea. The common mistake is that most companies equate ‘investment’ with sending someone on a training course as an end in itself.

This is no big surprise. It’s been reported previously that only 40% of companies say that their learning strategy is aligned with business goals, and this isn’t a good place to be. Without input from others in leadership or a lack of company goals, your team is left to create their own. This makes it difficult to pinpoint key metrics, leaving you and your team with a lack of understanding of what’s important across the organization.

Below are the Top 4 (out of 10) Reasons Why People Work Harder, Feel Engaged, Give More, and Stay Longer (or the opposite – why they leave). It was originally part of a global survey conducted periodically by the Corporate Leadership Council.

In many, many global surveys – in all types and sizes of organizations – when quantifying the Top 10 Reasons Why People Give More, Are More Productive, and Stay Longer … No.1 is consistently: The organization is committed to truly investing in me; in helping me build an effective training and development plan and career path – and helping me discover where I ‘fit’ and can contribute most effectively. They care about me, my family, and my future – not just the work I do.

This survey is amongst dozens that almost unanimously agree on especially No. 1 – which shows that the biggest reason why people leave (or stay) is the lack of an investment in a person’s training and development. One big reason why it is No. 1 is that the learner’s line manager is only ‘loosely’ involved with them and the training they undergo and try to apply on the job. No. 3 is closely connected to the first two – part of ‘fit’ is that my contribution is valued because it is impactful as part of the vision, mission, and values of the company. All of this can be – and should be – tied to performance outcomes and goals – in a transparent, fair, and purposeful way.

This is what maximizing Learning and Development ROI looks like! This is what ensures companies keep great people for longer! And this is not only a right and good thing to do, it’s ‘smart business’.

INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT NOTE: Attendance on a training course, receiving a completion certificate, ticking the box on your Individual Learning Plan – does not make you or mean you are competent. Until you effectively and usefully demonstrate and use the key or critical learning points (from the learning event or activity) on the job, and in a way that supports departmental or organizational goals and objectives, it’s pretty much a waste of money.

Sure, you can add the course completion and even the certificate you receive to your resume/CV while you’re looking for your next job. And approximately 80% of the time, the fact that you’re even thinking about leaving an organization for ‘better things’, is because your current organization simply does not take your learning and development ‘seriously’ and create opportunities for you to actually use the learning to grow in your job.

By ‘seriously’ I mean, making sure you use and apply what you’ve learned in the daily, real place of work. And then monitoring and measuring your contribution and helping you discover how you can further learn, grow, improve – and contribute – and be recognized and rewarded for your effort.

The late Donald Kirkpatrick (the ‘father’ of learning value levels) identified 4 (and then, later, 5) Levels of Training Impact and how we can evaluate its effectiveness. Most courses or learning activities, if you’re very lucky, reach Level 3 – especially when it’s non-technical ‘soft’ skills training.

Kirkpatrick’s 5 Levels of Training Evaluation

• Level 1: The attendee reacted positively and was happy/satisfied with the training
• Level 2: The attendee gained some new knowledge
• Level 3: The attendee’s behavior changed or improved
• Level 4: The attendee made an impact on the business and/or productivity increased
• Level 5: The full training ‘experience’ demonstrated a measurable ‘Return on Investment’ (ROI)

Kirkpatrick Partners, LLC. Dr. Don Kirkpatrick – The Kirkpatrick Model of Training Evaluation

The problem with the idea of measuring learning impact – at least in terms of how most organizations try to do this – is that it is normally highly subjective. Managers try to assess and measure a positive shift in ‘attitude’ or morale or commitment or ‘better’ behavior – each of which is extremely difficult to quantify. This is especially true when Finance and HR VPs are hoping to be satisfied that the training was a good use of the budget. Then we try to add into the mix a more profound or insightful EQ/EI type ‘observation’ and assess the person’s ‘potential’ – again, this is not something that can be empirically measured.

The additional problem with this way of thinking is that we don’t build applications of learning (using it) into our performance management systems. And/or we simply select a course that you and/or your boss think would be ‘useful’ or needed – and then hope for the best. Besides, the organization promised you a maximum of 40 hours. of learning each year as part of your contract – so use it or lose it.

This approach described above is globally accepted and the more we become obsessed with tech (HRMS/HRIS/AI) solving all our HR and related problems, and neglect the human connection aspects, the more we tend to think that this approach to systematically and efficiently ‘boiling the ocean’ is the way go.

The following old executive ‘conversation’ captures the good intentions behind true investment in people but is very difficult to translate into useful and effective impact on the job.

CFO: “What if we spend all this money on training people and then they leave!?”

CEO: “What if we don’t spend money on training people and they stay?”

It is sloppy ROI thinking. You must have a method for assigning the right training and must hold line managers accountable to ensure the training is used on the job. It requires commitment, time, coaching, a system, and a relationship with the learner/direct report. The learner’s line manager must be close to the applied learning action. I’ll say it again, sending people to learning events of almost any kind does not result in demonstrable competence. Attendance does NOT EQUAL competence.

Here’s a better way. I’ll outline by describing how to boil 3 ‘ROI teacups’.

1. As part of the ongoing performance management conversation, or organizational TNA, a learning activity or event of some kind is identified. First of all, you and your line manager agree that it is needed – and then agree on what key or critical learning points should be focused on. Do this BEFORE you attend the training!
2. You and your line manager agree on ‘how’ the key learning points will be used on the job as part of your agreed performance objectives and goals and even incorporated into the S.M.A.R.T. or other goals agreed and set. You agree on focus with an eye on impact.
3. Your line manager agrees with and accepts accountability for, ensuring you have what you need (e.g. time, resources, people, tools, IT, etc.) to both apply the learning and how you will – together – measure the impact. In short, agree on how you – together – will assess if the money spent on training was worth it. Does it have an ROI? The right amount of the right kind of ROI.

Note: This methodology is all documented in what I call a Learning-Performance Accountability Agreement (L-PAA) which effectively and administratively (inside the HRMS) connects agreed performance goals and outcomes with applied learning – on the job. Essentially, you are capturing, in person (face-to-face – manager and their report) and in the system, valuable ROI data. In addition to this, you can identify the possible reasons why the applied learning was NOT effective and DID NOT lead to good ROI (which is actually close to Kirkpatrick’s Level 6).

The whole idea centers around the Line Manager’s direct, intentional involvement in the report’s/learner’s performance and other aspects of their leadership like phased Delegation, Coaching, and Feedback. But it MUST be proactive, consistent, and supportive. And I strongly, STRONGLY recommend that this is NOT done electronically, anonymously, or with AI. Face-to-face, eye-to-eye, heart-to-heart is the only way to make this truly work.

CRITICALLY IMPORTANT NOTE: This L-PAA approach that I am pushing here is not a cure-all for ROI ‘ills’. It’s a framework that captures critical data and forces the ‘players’ to adopt a common mindset. It can also ‘force’ us to ask better questions about the individual and the organizational need BEFORE the learning begins. There are so many other factors that need to be considered to produce effective, impactful learning. That said, too much of the following described below is not taken seriously enough. Still, the fundamental point this author is trying to make is, “If you don’t use it, you’ll lose it.”

1. Individual Learning Preferences: The learning preference or style or ‘character’ of the learner must, whenever possible, be factored into the course, event, or learning opportunity selection. True, we cannot provide training for all character or personality types, but people learn in different ways – we know this! Reading, trial and error, testing ideas, under pressure, analyzing, interaction, activities, listening, watching, reflecting – virtual/e-learning, face-to-face – on and on we could go. The right kind of learning delivery is critical to effectiveness and truly developing competency.
2. Competency Frameworks: We are quick to import, or even build, a competency framework with different levels of Knowledge, Skill, Ability, etc. (KSAO) for specific jobs and roles. But far too often the assumption is that if someone attends the training on a specific skill (mostly knowledge-based), then the box can be ticked as now being ‘competent’. More often than not, however, there is very little consideration given to ‘behavioral indicators’ – indications that the training input has resulted in demonstratable (and even quantifiable) results – on the job.

Our problem is that we have increasingly adopted a tech ‘plug-and-play’ mindset – thinking if they’ve attended, passed the written test, or ticked the post-course self-assessment with lots of ‘5s’ (Greatly Improved/Learned A Lot – since the course began 2 days ago). But what are the behavioral and performance indications that they actually know how to Use It – and Use It in the right way?

I’ll stop preaching now. Here are some other aspects of impactful learning and improved ROI.

INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT PERSONAL NOTE: Some years ago, I personally shared the Learning-Performance Accountability Agreement (L-PAA) model with Roy Kirkpatrick (Donald Kirkpatrick’s son) and he enthusiastically, and publicly, declared that the model was the closest thing to a Level 5 he had seen up to that time. Here’s a sample/generic graphic of the L-PAA process:

Summary

• Don’t think of training courses as ends in themselves.
• Attendance does not equal competence.
• Have a solid, consistent approach to identifying training needs and skills gaps.
• Know your people (Mr./Ms. Manager) – how they prefer to learn.
• Know your people (Mr./Ms. Manager) – what they are ready for in terms of taking on more; learning, growing, and improving.
• Agree on what critical skills need to be learned.
• Agree on how those skills can be used on the job in alignment with performance goals.
• Put it all into their Personal/Professional Development Plan.
• Agree (Mr./Ms. Manager) how you are going to support and ensure your ‘learner’ has what they need to actually use the new skills and knowledge on the job.
• Agree (Mr./Ms. Manager) how you will ‘assess’ or ‘measure’ that the applied learning is impactful and effective.
• Still have a challenging conversation with the VPs of Finance and HR about whether it was money well spent.