Most leadership and sales training programs don’t fail because the content is poor. They fail because organizations misunderstand what training is supposed to do.

Too often, what could be an incredibly valuable training session (or sessions) is hijacked to drive participation, engagement scores, or short-term enthusiasm rather than business results. Leaders feel good. People say the session was “useful.” Tomorrow arrives, and behavior stays the same. Have you seen this inyour experience? I have.

If training is not measurably improving performance, capability, and on-the-job effectiveness, it is not development. It is an event.

The difference matters.

Who Owns This?

‍

Senior leadership owns this.

‍

Not HR. Not Learning & Development. Not the external facilitator.

‍

If training outcomes are unclear, ownership has already been misplaced.

Executives own training effectiveness because they control the systems that determine whether new behaviors are supported or suppressed: strategy, structure, metrics, incentives, managerial expectations, and cultural norms.

When training “doesn’t stick,” the root cause is almost always upstream of the classroom.

The Real Reason Training Fails

‍

Across industries, roles, and organization sizes, failed training programs tend to break down in predictable ways:

      • Training is treated as a one-time event instead of a process.

      • Managers do not have a process, are not equipped to reinforce new behaviors, or are not expected to do so.

      • Business systems, compensation, and recognition programs often continue to reward old habits while training promotes new behaviors.

      • Participants lack the authority to apply what they learned.

      • Accountability ends when the workshop ends.

‍

None of these are training problems. They are leadership decisions.

Training fails when leaders delegate development while retaining control over everything that determines whether the development succeeds.

What Decision Does This Clarify?

‍

The critical decision leaders must make is this:

‍

Are we investing in training as an activity—or developing capability as a business system?

If training is an activity, success is measured by attendance, satisfaction surveys, and completion certificates.

If development is a system, success is measured by:

      • Observable behavior change.

      • Improved execution.

      • Better decisions.

      • Stronger results tied to business metrics.

‍

This activity-versus-development decision drives every subsequent design choice.

‍ 

Why “Good Training” Still Doesn’t Transfer

‍

Even well-designed programs collapse without four conditions in place:

      1. Clear Performance Expectations
         People must know exactly what behavior is expected to change—and how success will be evaluated on the job.

      2. Manager Reinforcement
         Direct managers must coach, observe, and reinforce new behaviors. Without this, training competes with daily pressure—and loses.

      3. Aligned Systems
         Compensation, KPIs, workflows, and approval structures must support the behaviors being taught. People follow what the system rewards.

      4. Post-Training Accountability
         There must be follow-up, commitments, and consequences. Otherwise, training becomes optional the moment urgency returns.

‍

When any one of these is missing, training degrades into insight without execution.

What Changes When Leaders Get This Right

‍

Organizations that treat development as a system see clear, measurable shifts:

      • Managers stop viewing training as a break from work and start using it as a tool for improving performance.

      • Employees apply new skills faster because expectations are explicit and reinforced.

      • Leaders stop buying more training to fix the same problems.

      • Capability compounds instead of resetting after each program.

‍

Training stops being something people attend and becomes something the organization uses.

The Leadership Trap to Avoid

‍

One of the most common—and costly—mistakes leaders make is using training to compensate for unresolved leadership issues:

      • Unclear strategy.

      • Conflicting priorities.

      • Poor role clarity.

      • Weak managerial discipline.

‍

Training cannot fix what leadership has not defined, modeled, or enforced. In fact, it often exposes those gaps.

When organizations send people to training without addressing these issues, they unintentionally teach cynicism: “We’re being trained on things we’re not allowed to do.”

The Practical Shift Leaders Must Make

‍

Effective development requires a shift in thinking:

      • From delivering content to building capacity and capability.

      • From events to reinforcement loops.

      • From participation metrics to performance outcomes.

‍

This does not require more training. It requires better integration between leadership, management, and development.

What Changes as a Result?

‍

When leaders own development outcomes:

      • Training investments produce durable behavior change.

      • Managers become multipliers, not bottlenecks.

      • Performance improves in ways leaders can see and measure.

      • People grow in capability—not just confidence.

‍

That is the difference between training that feels good and development that works.

And it is why the most effective organizations don’t ask, “Did people like the training?”

‍

They ask, “What changed—and how do we know?”

‍