From events to impact

Icebreaker

The Training Autopsy

95% completed it and called it clear. Nothing changed afterwards.

1. 1Put this case to the room. A mandatory course, 95% completion, feedback saying clear and well delivered. Everyone got the same session in the same format, the trainer knew the subject well, nothing was built in afterwards, and two weeks on no manager could point to anything different.
2. 2Sort those details into two columns: signs of apparent success, and signs of actual weakness.
3. 3Say what would mislead an organisation here, and what evidence is missing entirely.
4. 4Before reading the chapter, write two predictions about what it will argue.

Working on your own? Rank these from most misleading to least: completion rate, attendance, positive feedback, observed behaviour change, improved performance. Then check your order against the chapter.

Icebreaker

Learning Match Interviews

You are introduced by someone who had to listen before they could speak.

1. 1Pair up. Four questions each, five minutes a side.
2. 2Ask what keeps them engaged, how they prefer to take things in, and the one thing a trainer could do that would help.
3. 3Connect what you heard to one idea from the chapter: personalisation, adaptive delivery, or measuring capability rather than completion.
4. 4Introduce your partner to the room, with that connection included.

Working on your own? Answer the four questions yourself, then ask a colleague the same four. Hearing someone else’s answers is what makes your own visible.

Icebreaker

The Invisible Learner Audit

Every training design has someone it was built for. Work out who.

1. 1Take this session. Ninety minutes, mandatory, same slides, same examples, same pace for everyone, measured by attendance and whether the trainer seemed clear. Nothing was found out about the learners beforehand.
2. 2Write privately: who does this work well for, who finds it harder, and who becomes invisible in it?
3. 3Finish each line three times. This training assumes all learners can. A more aligned version would.
4. 4Share however you choose. Keep it private, tell one person, or submit one line anonymously to be read out.

Working on your own? Collect only the anonymous lines and read them out unattributed. Nobody should be asked to identify themselves as the overlooked learner.

Journaling

From Events to Continuous Development

A session attended is an event. A capability changed is something else.

1. 1Write what goes wrong when training is a single event, and why completion is a weak measure.
2. 2Set out the old model against the future-ready one. What changes for the learner, and for the trainer?
3. 3Think of a session you attended. Event, or part of something ongoing? What made it stick?
4. 4Finish three times: if I were redesigning training based on this chapter, I would.

Working with a group? Write first, then pool only the redesign lines. Reading twenty specific changes together is more persuasive than any summary of the chapter.

Problem solving

Redesign a One-Off Training Event

Two hours, full attendance, good feedback. Managers see nothing change.

1. 1Name four weaknesses in the current programme and what each one costs.
2. 2Redesign it. Build in reinforcement, make it ongoing, and change what counts as success.
3. 3If you could change one thing first, say which and why.
4. 4Say what you would want to know before delivery, and how you would tell whether it worked.

Working with a group? Each person picks their single first change, then defends it. Where the group starts tells you what it really believes is broken.

Worksheet

Event-Based or Future-Ready

Identical content, aligned delivery, different results. Worth checking what that proves.

1. 1Read Approach A. Training arrives as a one-off event. Delivery is standardised, the trainer is there as subject expert, and success is attendance and completion. The numbers look healthy. Whether anything changed at work is never really asked.
2. 2Read Approach B. Training is continuous, with reinforcement and application built in. Delivery flexes to fit the group while the objectives hold. The trainer is also a learning designer. Success is judged by capability and behaviour, which is harder to measure.
3. 3Compare them: what each one is for; what gets counted as success; what the trainer is expected to be; what is still true six months later.
4. 4Critique both. What does a single clear event still do well? Why do completion rates mislead? What does continuous design make possible? Can flexibility cost consistency?
5. 5Make a judgement. Scalability without uniformity is desirable but hard to achieve. Argue both sides from the chapter, then say what an organisation with limited budget should do first. Finish the sentence: If an organisation wants to know whether training worked, it should measure…