Training That Changes Behavior Actually Works
Organizations continue to invest heavily in training, yet dissatisfaction with its impact remains persistent. Leaders routinely report that employees attend workshops, complete learning modules, and express positive reactions, only to revert quickly to established behaviors once training concludes. Research on training effectiveness consistently shows that this outcome is not an anomaly but a predictable result of how training is commonly designed and evaluated.
One of the most well-established findings in the training literature is the gap between learning and application. A meta-analytic review by Blume et al. (2010) demonstrates that while participants often acquire knowledge during training, only a modest portion of that learning transfers into sustained behavior change on the job. This gap, known as the transfer problem, persists across industries, roles, and training formats, suggesting that the issue lies not with individual learners but with organizational conditions surrounding training.
Context plays a critical role in whether learning transfers into practice. Research shows that training is more likely to influence behavior when it is embedded in the realities of work, rather than delivered as abstract or decontextualized content. Salas et al. (2012) argue that effective training must account for task complexity, team dynamics, and environmental constraints, emphasizing that learning does not occur in isolation from organizational systems. When training fails to reflect the conditions under which employees are expected to perform, the likelihood of application diminishes significantly.
More recent research reinforces this conclusion. Kauffeld et al. (2025) find that learning transfer is strongest when organizations actively support application through opportunities to practice, feedback mechanisms, and alignment with job demands. Without these supports, even high-quality training content is unlikely to result in durable change. This finding challenges the common assumption that exposure to best practices or frameworks alone is sufficient to improve performance.
Evaluation practices further contribute to the problem. Many organizations continue to rely on participant satisfaction or knowledge assessments as indicators of training success. However, Reio et al. (2017) critique this approach, noting that such measures provide limited insight into whether training influences behavior or organizational outcomes. When evaluation stops at reaction or learning levels, leaders lack the data needed to understand whether training is producing meaningful change or to make informed adjustments.
Organizational priorities also shape training effectiveness. The 2025 Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends report highlights growing pressure on organizations to reskill and adapt amid shifting worker expectations, technological change, and complex labor dynamics (Deloitte, 2025). In this environment, training that is disconnected from strategic goals or operational realities is increasingly viewed as insufficient. Organizations that align learning initiatives with business objectives and workforce needs are better positioned to translate development efforts into performance gains.
Taken together, the evidence suggests that training fails not because people resist learning, but because organizations underestimate the conditions required for learning to translate into action. Training that changes behavior is intentionally designed around real work, supported by leadership, reinforced through application, and evaluated based on observable outcomes rather than participation alone.
Evidence-based training follows a different logic. It begins with clearly defined performance challenges, integrates learning into ongoing work processes, and creates structures that support experimentation and reflection. It also treats behavior change as a process rather than an event, recognizing that sustained improvement requires reinforcement over time. When these conditions are present, research shows that training can and does influence how people think, decide, and perform at work (Blume et al., 2010; Kauffeld et al., 2025; Salas et al., 2012).
Training that changes behavior is not aspirational. It is deliberate, contextual, and measurable. Organizations that adopt this approach move beyond checking the training box and begin using learning as a strategic lever for execution, adaptability, and long-term effectiveness.
References
Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065–1105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352880
Deloitte. (2025). 2025 Global human capital trends: Navigating complex tensions and choices in the worker–organization relationship. https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/talent/human-capital-trends.html
Kauffeld, S., Decius, J., & Graßmann, C. (2025). Learning and transfer in organisations: How it works and can be supported. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 34(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2025.2463799
Reio, T. G., Rocco, T. S., Smith, D. H., & Chang, E. (2017). A critique of Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 29(2), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20178
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of training and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(2), 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436661
