Posts

Why Your Company's Training Programs Don't Create Lasting Change

Here's something that'll make HR departments across Australia want to throw their compliance manuals at me: most corporate training is about as effective as a chocolate teapot.

I've been running workplace development programs for nearly two decades now, and I've watched companies throw millions at "transformational learning experiences" that transform absolutely nothing except their bottom line. The participants nod along, fill out their satisfaction surveys with glowing 4.5-star ratings, and then promptly return to their desks to do exactly what they were doing before.

The Satisfaction Survey Scam

Let's talk about those post-training surveys for a moment. You know the ones - they ask participants to rate their experience immediately after a session while they're still buzzing from the free lunch and coffee. It's like asking someone how they feel about their new gym membership while they're still in the car park. Of course they're optimistic!

I learned this the hard way back in 2018 when I delivered what I thought was a brilliant leadership program to a mining company in Perth. The feedback was phenomenal. "Life-changing," they said. "Revolutionary approach to management." Six months later, I bumped into one of the participants at a business networking event. He couldn't remember half of what we'd covered.

That's when it hit me: we're measuring the wrong thing entirely.

The problem isn't that training programs are poorly designed (though many are). The real issue is that most organisations treat training like a vaccination - one shot and you're immune to incompetence forever. They book a two-day workshop, tick the "professional development" box, and wonder why nothing changes.

The Forgetting Curve Doesn't Care About Your Budget

Hermann Ebbinghaus figured this out in 1885, but apparently his research memo never made it to modern HR departments. Without reinforcement, people forget 50% of new information within an hour and 90% within a week. Yet we persist with these intensive, one-off training events as if the human brain operates differently in corporate environments.

I once worked with a manufacturing company that spent $47,000 on a communication skills workshop for their supervisors. Brilliant content, engaging facilitator, excellent venue. Three months later, workplace incidents were actually higher than before the training. Not because the program was bad, but because they'd created false confidence without building actual competence.

The supervisors thought they were now "communication experts" and started having difficult conversations they weren't really equipped to handle. It's like giving someone a driver's licence after showing them a PowerPoint about cars.

What Actually Works (And Why Nobody Does It)

Here's what I've discovered works, but companies hate it because it's not sexy and you can't put it in a single quarterly budget line:

Micro-learning with massive repetition. Instead of cramming eight hours of content into one day, break it into 15-minute chunks spread over six months. I know, I know - logistics nightmare. But here's the thing: real behavioural change happens through consistent practice, not inspirational speeches.

The most successful program I ever ran was for a Brisbane accounting firm. We delivered leadership training in tiny bite-sized pieces - one concept per fortnight, followed by peer coaching sessions where participants had to demonstrate what they'd learned. Boring? Absolutely. Effective? Their staff retention improved by 34% over 18 months.

But try selling that approach to executives who want immediate results and Instagram-worthy training photos.

The Real Culprits

Let's be honest about who's really to blame here. It's not the training providers (mostly). It's the organisational culture that treats learning like an event instead of a process.

The "spray and pray" mentality. Companies love the idea of training large groups simultaneously because it feels efficient. Get everyone in a room, download the knowledge, job done. Except humans don't work like USB drives. You can't just transfer files and expect them to integrate seamlessly.

The accountability vacuum. Most training programs end with participants setting goals they'll never be held accountable for achieving. Managers who attend leadership courses return to workplaces where nobody asks them to demonstrate their new skills. It's like learning to drive but never being required to take the car out of the garage.

The context disconnect. The biggest sin of corporate training is teaching generic skills in artificial environments. Role-playing difficult conversations with strangers in a conference room teaches you absolutely nothing about handling your actual difficult colleague who's been driving you mad for three years.

I remember facilitating a customer service workshop where we practised dealing with "angry customers" using scripted scenarios. Meanwhile, the participants' real customers were calling the office next door, and their colleagues were struggling with actual complaints that were nothing like our neat little role-plays.

The Measurement Delusion

Here's where I really lose friends in the training industry: measuring training effectiveness through satisfaction surveys is like measuring marriage success by asking couples how they felt at their wedding reception. It's completely meaningless.

The only metrics that matter are behavioural change and business outcomes measured 6-12 months post-training. But that requires patience and sophisticated measurement systems that most companies can't be bothered implementing.

One telecommunications company I worked with actually got this right. They tracked specific behaviours before and after their conflict resolution program using peer observations and customer feedback data. Guess what? Only 23% of participants showed sustained behavioural improvement. The company was initially disappointed until I pointed out that 23% was actually an excellent result - most programs achieve closer to 8%.

But here's the kicker: they used that data to refine their approach instead of abandoning it. Revolutionary thinking.

The Culture Problem Nobody Wants to Address

Training programs fail because they're trying to change individuals within systems that actively resist change. It's like trying to teach someone to swim while they're wearing concrete boots.

You can send managers on the best communication course in Australia, but if they return to an environment where their boss still manages through intimidation and fear, what do you think they're going to do? They'll revert to the behaviours that get rewarded in their actual workplace, not the ones they learned in the training room.

I've seen this pattern repeatedly across industries. Mining companies that preach safety culture while rewarding productivity above all else. Retail chains that train staff in customer service excellence while cutting support staff to skeleton crews. Professional services firms that invest in leadership development while promoting people based solely on billable hours.

The training becomes a cynical box-ticking exercise. Everyone knows it's theatre.

What Real Change Looks Like

Here's something controversial: the most effective workplace development I've witnessed happened at a small family-owned construction company in Adelaide that never hired a single external trainer.

Their approach was beautifully simple. Every Friday afternoon, different team members taught each other skills - sometimes work-related, sometimes random life skills. No formal curriculum, no satisfaction surveys, no certificates. Just people sharing knowledge and holding each other accountable for improvement.

Their apprentice completion rate was 94% compared to an industry average of 56%. Their safety incidents were negligible. Staff turnover was virtually non-existent. All because they created a culture where learning was embedded in daily work, not separated from it.

But try explaining that to a corporation that needs to justify training expenditure to shareholders.

The Hard Truth About Sustainable Change

Real behavioural change requires three things that most organisations refuse to provide: time, repetition, and environmental support.

Time because learning happens gradually, not in intensive bursts. Repetition because new behaviours need to become automatic through practice. Environmental support because people need systems and colleagues that reinforce new ways of working.

Instead, we get two-day workshops followed by inspirational emails that everyone deletes unread.

The irony is that sustainable change actually costs less than our current broken system. Instead of expensive one-off events, you need consistent, smaller interventions supported by management commitment. But it requires patience and long-term thinking - two qualities in short supply in modern business.

Moving Forward (If You Actually Want To)

If you're serious about creating training that actually changes behaviour, stop thinking about events and start thinking about journeys. Design programs that extend over months, not days. Build in multiple touchpoints, peer accountability, and measurement that matters.

Most importantly, fix your culture before you fix your people. No amount of training will overcome systemic dysfunction.

But honestly? Most companies won't do this because it's hard work and you can't photograph the results for your annual report. They'll keep buying the training equivalent of fad diets - quick fixes that promise dramatic results with minimal effort.

And consultants like me will keep taking their money while secretly knowing that sustainable change requires exactly what they're unwilling to provide: patience, consistency, and genuine commitment to long-term development.

At least the coffee at these training events is usually pretty good.