Blog

A Conversation Every Finance Director Needs to Hear

Picture this: Research shows training can deliver £4.53 for every £1 invested. That is a whopping 353% return. Your organisation spends £100,000 on leadership training. You should see £353,000 in measurable business value. If you invest £30,000 the return should be £105,900.

The reality for most businesses with standard training delivery methods, even after twelve months later, they’ve captured perhaps 10% of that potential. If you were hoping for £353,000 you are probably missing £318,000 of your ROI.

The money didn’t vanish. The potential was real. So what happened?

 

The answer lies in a critical gap: learning transfer.

Before you dismiss this as theoretical, consider two separate and related bodies of research:

The Potential: Accenture’s study of training ROI found an average return of $4.53 for every dollar spent. Companies investing heavily in training report 24% higher profit margins and 218% higher income per employee. Harvard research indicates every 10% increase in manager effectiveness yields a 14% increase in productivity.

The potential is massive. The evidence is overwhelming.

The Problem: Carter and Parker’s landmark study on training effectiveness revealed back in 1993 that only 10% of training transfers back to the workplace in terms of measurable impact on behaviour.

The gap between what training could deliver and what it actually delivers isn’t about the potential value. It’s about learning transfer - whether people actually apply what they’ve learned.

This is the gap. This is where your ROI disappears.

 

As someone who’s spent 25 years in the consulting and training trenches and I’ve witnessed this gap firsthand. The question isn’t whether training has value. It’s whether your delivery approach captures that value.

 

Understanding the Two Metrics That Matter

Let’s be precise about what we’re measuring:

Learning Transfer Rate: The percentage of training content that participants actually apply back in their roles. Traditional lecture-based training: 10%. Experiential, assessment-driven training: 40-70%.

Financial ROI: The monetary return generated per pound invested. Well-designed training: 100-400%+ ROI. Poorly designed training: negative ROI after accounting for opportunity costs.

The Relationship: High transfer rates unlock high financial ROI. Low transfer rates mean you capture only a fraction of the available return - or none at all.

 

The Lecture Trap: Why Your Default Method Fails

Here’s an uncomfortable truth: the most popular training method in UK business is also the worst at driving learning transfer.

Research consistently rates the lecture as having “moderate to low effectiveness” for achieving training objectives. Yet in 1994, lectures and videotapes remained the most frequently selected methods. Today? Live webinars and On-Demand Video based programmes have simply digitised the same ineffective approach. A YouTube Video is still a lecture.

Why the disconnect? Carter and Parker identified a fascinating phenomenon: training professionals favour “newer” methods because they want to appear current, not because these methods deliver better transfer. The result? Organisations invest in fashionable training methods that feels modern while they still deliver Victorian results.

 

The Three Barriers to Transfer (and ROI)

The research reveals three critical barriers to learning transfer:

1. Event Orientation vs. Process Approach

Most training still treats learning as a one-off event. Participants attend, tick the box, return to their desks. Without ongoing reinforcement, knowledge decays rapidly. Yes, the Ebbinghaus Effect / The Forgetting Curve has survived. It is still here is 2025. Carter and Parker recommend treating training as a continuous learning process with no separation after the actual training has been completed.

2. Method-Outcome Mismatch

Different training methods excel at different objectives. Lectures work adequately for information transfer - compliance training, product knowledge. While building skills like leadership, negotiation, or coaching, require fundamentally different approaches.

Using lectures to develop interpersonal skills is like using a hammer to tighten a screw. It’s the wrong tool for the job, regardless of how enthusiastically you swing it.

3. Measurement Myopia

Most organisations measure participant satisfaction (“Did they enjoy it?”) rather than behavioural change (“Are they doing it differently?”). Research by Phillips, Bersin, and Fitz-enz proves that organisations measuring learning transfer achieve 3-4x better returns than those relying on subjective feedback.

If you’re not measuring transfer, you’re not managing it. And if you’re not managing it, you’re not capturing the potential ROI.

 

The Real Cost of Low Transfer Rates

Let’s calculate what the typical 10% transfer actually costs your organisation:

Scenario A: Traditional Training (10% Transfer) - Training investment: £100,000 - Potential ROI at 353%: £353,000 in business value - Actual value captured at 10% transfer: £35,300

• Actual loss: £64,700 (you spent more than you generated).
• Lost opportunity: £317,700.

 Scenario B: Evidence-Based Training (40% Transfer) - Training investment: £120,000 (20% premium for quality methods) - Potential ROI at 353%: £423,600 in business value - Actual value captured at 40% transfer: £169,440

• Net Profit: £49,440 (you generated more than you spent)
• Net gain over Scenario A: £134,140

Multiply this across your entire training budget, and the numbers become staggering. A £500,000 annual training spend with 10% transfer captures £176,500 of potential value. Training is literally costing you money. The same budget with 40% transfer captures £706,000. And you generate a profit on training. That is the way it is supposed to work.

The difference? £529,500 annually. Old way = a loss. New way = True R.O.I.

This isn’t a training problem. It’s a transfer problem - and it’s costing you a fortune.

 

The Path Forward: Matching Method to Outcome

At MLR, we’ve built our entire approach around maximising learning transfer through evidence-based methods:

• Simulations that create concrete experience and emotional engagement
• Assessment tools that raise self-awareness or measure behavioural change
• Structured follow-up that treats learning as a process, not an event
• Method-outcome alignment that matches training approach to desired capability

The research is unambiguous: experiential learning methods - simulations, role-plays, case studies, action learning - consistently deliver 40-70% transfer rates compared to 10% for traditional methods.

This isn’t about spending more. It’s about capturing more of the value that training can deliver.

 

The Question That Matters

Next time someone proposes a training programme, ask this: “How will we measure whether people are actually doing things differently six months from now?”

If the answer involves feedback forms and satisfaction surveys, you’re planning to waste money.

If the answer involves baseline assessments, behavioural observation, and performance metrics, you’re planning to capture R.O.I.

The choice is yours. But the research is clear: the method you choose determines the value you capture.

Ready to stop leaving money on the table? Explore MLR's assessment tools and experiential learning programmes designed to maximise learning transfer and business impact.

Your Next Step

If you’re a Finance Director, HR Manager, or Training Leader tired of watching training budgets evaporate, it’s time for a different conversation.

Not about whether training delivers ROI - the research proves it can.

About whether your training is designed to capture it.

Let’s talk about closing your transfer gap.

Contact Bob Hayward at MLR/Be More Effective