Blog

Why Your Training Fails Before It Begins

Last week, an HR Director asked me: “Bob, we’ve tried everything - e-learning, workshops, external consultants - but nothing sticks. What are we doing wrong?”

My answer surprised her: “You’re not doing anything wrong. You’re just doing the right things for the wrong outcomes.”

This is the hidden crisis in corporate training. Research by Carter, Tracey, and Noe reveals that training effectiveness depends less on budget and more on matching method to desired outcome. Get this wrong, and even a £500,000 programme delivers negligible results. Get it right, and a £50,000 investment transforms performance.

It's not about the cash investment...it's about the tools you invest in!

The Method-Outcome Disconnect

Here’s what decades of research tells us: different training methods excel at different objectives.

Knowledge Acquisition: If your goal is information transfer - compliance training, product knowledge, policy updates - lectures and e-learning modules work adequately. They’re efficient, scalable, and cost-effective for this specific purpose.

But here’s the trap: most organisations stop there. They assume that because someone knows something, they’ll do something. Research proves otherwise.

Skill Development: Building competencies - negotiation, leadership, coaching - requires fundamentally different methods. Interactive approaches consistently outperform passive ones:

• Role-playing: High effectiveness for interpersonal skills
• Case studies: High effectiveness for problem-solving and critical thinking
• Simulations: High effectiveness for decision-making under pressure
• Workshops: High effectiveness for collaborative learning

At MLR, our communication skills assessments and negotiation tools recognise this distinction. We don’t lecture people about communication - we put them in scenarios where they must communicate effectively, receive feedback, and adjust in real-time.

Behavioural Change: This is where most training investments collapse. Changing behaviour requires more than knowledge and more than skill - it demands motivation, reinforcement, and accountability.

Carter’s research demonstrates that alignment between trainee abilities and training method leads to “greater knowledge gains and greater efficiency of training.” But efficiency means nothing if behaviour doesn’t change.

The Noe Matrix: A Practical Framework

Raymond Noe’s work provides training professionals with a practical decision-making tool: a matrix correlating learning outcomes, learning environments, transfer of training, costs, and effectiveness across 13 training methods, ranked as high, medium, or low effectiveness.

This isn’t theoretical. It’s a roadmap for making evidence-based investment decisions.

• High-Effectiveness Methods for Leadership Development: - Action learning projects - Business simulations - Executive coaching - 360-degree feedback with structured follow-up
• Medium-Effectiveness Methods: - Blended learning programmes - Facilitated workshops - Peer coaching circles
• Low-Effectiveness Methods: - Lecture-based seminars - Self-paced e-learning (without support) - One-off motivational speakers

Notice what’s missing from the high-effectiveness list? Anything passive, one-directional, or event-based.

The Generational Challenge: One Size Fits None

Northrop Grumman’s experience offers a masterclass in method selection. With 120,000 employees spanning four generations - from Baby Boomers to Gen Z - they discovered that no single method worked across the board.

Their solution?

A blended approach: - Classroom sessions for foundational concepts - Case study scenarios for application - Simulations for decision-making practice - Peer-to-peer coaching for transfer support

The result? Competency development across business divisions that actually stuck.

This aligns perfectly with our approach at MLR and Be More Effective. We use Learning Style Indicators to understand individual preferences, then design learning experiences that accommodate diverse learning styles whilst maintaining rigorous standards.

The Military Model: Train Fast, Train Right

The military has pioneered training methodology for decades because they face a unique constraint: failure costs lives.

Their approach? Ruthless focus on transfer of training. Every method must prove it creates measurable performance improvement under pressure. Lectures don’t cut it. Passive learning doesn’t cut it. Only methods that build muscle memory and decision-making capability survive.

Many of the training methods identified by Tracey (1971), Laird (1998), and Noe (2008) originated in military contexts. They work because they’re designed for the hardest test: real-world application when stakes are highest.

Our leadership simulations and team-building exercises draw directly from this heritage. They’re not games - they’re pressure-tested learning environments that replicate workplace challenges.

The ROI Equation: Method Selection Matters

Let’s make this concrete with a real-world comparison:

Scenario: 50 managers need conflict resolution training

Option A: Traditional Lecture-Based Programme - Cost: £15,000 (external trainer, venue, materials) - Method: Two-day lecture with workbook exercises - Transfer rate: 10% (research-backed) - Behavioural change: 5 managers - Cost per successful outcome: £3,000

Option B: Experiential Simulation-Based Programme
- Cost: £25,000 (simulation materials, facilitation, assessment tools) - Method: One-day intensive with conflict resolution simulations and 90-day follow-up - Transfer rate: 40% (research-backed for interactive methods) - Behavioural change: 20 managers
- Cost per successful outcome: £1,250

Option B costs 67% more upfront but delivers 300% more results at 58% lower cost per outcome. This is the ROI equation Finance Directors need to see.

Making Smarter Decisions: Three Questions

Before approving any training investment, ask:

1. What specific outcome are we pursuing?
Knowledge? Skill? Behaviour change? Be brutally honest. “Better leadership” isn’t an outcome - it’s a wish. “Managers conducting effective performance conversations within 30 days” is an outcome.

2. Which methods does research prove effective for this outcome?
Consult the evidence. Don’t guess. Don’t default to what’s comfortable or cheap. Match method to outcome.

3. How will we measure transfer 90 days post-training?
If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it. Use tools like our PMC 180-degree assessment to track behavioural change over time.

Your Strategic Advantage

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: your competitors are making the same mistakes you are. They’re buying fashionable training, defaulting to lectures, and wondering why nothing changes.

This is your opportunity.

By applying evidence-based method selection, you don’t just improve training effectiveness - you create competitive advantage. Better-trained leaders make better decisions. Better-skilled teams execute faster. Better-equipped organisations adapt more quickly.

The research exists. The frameworks exist. The tools exist at MLR. The only question: will you use them?

Stop guessing. Start matching method to outcome. Contact us at [email protected] / 01793 686512 to discuss evidence-based training design for your organisation.

Bob Hayward combines 25+ years of consulting experience with scientific selection methods and experiential learning design. His work with organisations from 25-1,000 staff focuses on training that transfers, not training that ticks boxes.