You can deliver 'ROI' without changing behavior
But do you deserve the credit?
For as long as I’ve worked in L&D, the profession has appeared dogged by a nagging sense that the work we do doesn’t matter.
Back in 2017, long before the arrival of generative AI, the title of the first ever episode of The Mindtools L&D Podcast (formerly The GoodPractice Podcast) was ‘Is L&D dead?’
Three minutes into the episode, Ross G asked:
‘If every L&D person in the world was struck down by a sudden flu and could no longer perform their role, what impact do you think it would have?’
To be clear, nobody on the podcast made the case that the disappearance of L&D would be a good thing, or that its absence wouldn’t be felt.
But the question was asked, in a way I suspect it would not have been on a podcast aimed at sales, product, or marketing teams.
In the most recent Global Sentiment Survey, ‘Consulting more deeply with the business’ and ‘Showing value’ ranked at 6th and 7th respectively — two of the only options to gain vote-share in a year dominated by AI.
In presentations for industry awards, the question every judging panel invariably asks is ‘What impact did this have?’.
What these judges really want to know, the question every L&D professional frets over when they’re lying awake at night, is: ‘Did this project deliver return on investment?’.
But what does ‘return on investment’ mean in the context of organizational learning? And is all ROI created equal?
To answer these questions, let’s consider the following examples:
💻 Company A’s L&D team replaces an existing F2F program with a self-directed, online experience. As a result of cost savings, the program pays for itself in three years.
🤖 Company B’s L&D team leverages AI to streamline learning design, cutting the cost of e-learning development in half.
🕰️ Company C’s L&D team reduces the seat time of each module in its compliance suite by 5 minutes, saving almost 5,000 hours across the business’s workforce.
In each of these fictional companies, the L&D team has generated a measurable financial return on the business’s investment. But how much credit do they deserve?
Well, it depends.
What’s conspicuously absent from the examples above is any reference to outcomes:
🤔 The self-directed program might be cheaper, but is it as effective?
🧐 The AI-assisted workflow might be more efficient, but is there a trade-off in quality?
🫠 The shortened compliance courses might save time, but do they change behavior?
Of course, finding faster, more cost-effective ways of working isn’t a bad thing. But it should only be one part of the ROI equation.
If a business is spending less money on training that doesn’t change behavior, it’s still spending more money than it should be.
And if you’re only ‘showing value’ by trimming costs, you might still find yourself wondering if the work you do really matters.
Want to share your thoughts on ROI? Need help demonstrating behavior change? Then get in touch by emailing custom@mindtools.com or reply to this newsletter from your inbox.
🎧 On the podcast
In many organizations, not least within L&D, urgent and important short-term challenges often crowd out the bigger picture. So, how do we step back and take the long view?
In last week’s episode of The Mindtools L&D Podcast, Claire and I were joined by Nina Bressler, founder of Reimagined Value, to discuss:
Nina’s background and what she means by the term ‘societal learning’
How to work with business stakeholders to help them decide what to focus on
How to measure the impact of long-term initiatives.
Check out the episode below. 👇
You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, Spotify or the podcast page of our website.
📖 Deep dive
A recent research paper from Hamzah et al. begins with two questions:
1. Have you attended a workplace training focused on “soft skills” (i.e., inter/intrapersonal skills like leadership, teamwork, or resilience?)
2. Did that training meaningfully change your behaviour?
The authors point out that while the reader’s answer to the first question is probably ‘Yes’, the answer to the second question is more likely to be ‘No’.
This is what they describe as the ‘soft skills transfer problem’.
To address the problem, the team draw inspiration from behavioral science, combining Baldwin & Ford’s training-transfer framework with the COM-B model, creating a new model they call ‘COMPASS’ (Capability, Opportunity and Motivation of Professionals’ Application of Soft Skills).
Through a systematic scoping review, the authors identified 69 factors that have been linked to soft skills training transfer. Although it may not be cost-effective or feasible to account for all of these factors, Hamzah et al. write:
‘Practitioners can use the COMPASS model alongside a job and/or training needs analysis to identify specific barriers of training transfer. Practitioners can then design training interventions that address those specific challenges. It is important to note that from the perspective of the COMPASS model, training needs do not solely arise from a skills gap between actual and desired capabilities. Rather, a skills gap can also arise from barriers associated with motivation and/or opportunity.’
Hamzah, H. A., Marcinko, A. J., Stephens, B., & Weick, M. (2025). ‘Making soft skills ‘stick’: A systematic scoping review and integrated training transfer framework grounded in behavioural science.’ European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 34(2), 237–250.
👹 Missing links
🙅♂️ Ten reasons NOT to measure impact
For a slightly different spin on this week’s topic, it’s worth checking out Will Thalheimer’s recent article ‘Ten Reasons NOT to Measure Impact: Prioritizing Learning Effectiveness Over Performative Vanity Metrics’. There’s a lot to unpack in the article, but the crux of Will’s argument is that our obsession with proving value distracts us from the task of improving learning. As Will predicts at the end of the piece, I’d quibble with some of his ten reasons not to measure impact. But it’s nonetheless a provocative, interesting read.
😎 ‘Vibe coding’ named word of the year
Coined in February this year by OpenAI co-founder Andrej Karpathy, ‘vibe coding’ was recently named word of the year by Collins Dictionary. The term describes the process of using natural language to generate code with the help of AI, rather than doing it manually. Other notable contenders this year included ‘broligarchy’, ‘clankers’ and ‘aura framing’.
🏃 A father, a son, and the simplest of sports
I recently started reading Nick Thompson’s new book, The Running Ground: A Father, a Son, and the Simplest of Sports. As the title suggests, the book explores Thompson’s complicated relationship with his father, his love of running, and what a deceptively simple sport (putting one foot in front of the other) can teach us about discipline, motivation, and testing our limits.
👋 And finally…
Spotify Wrapped hasn’t come out yet. But when it does, Sam Fender’s People Watching will likely be on my list. Here’s an absolute banger to start your week:
👍 Thanks!
Thanks for reading The L&D Dispatch from Mind Tools! If you’d like to speak to us, work with us, or make a suggestion, you can email custom@mindtools.com.
Or just hit reply to this email!
Hey here’s a thing! If you’ve reached all the way to the end of this newsletter, then you must really love it!
Why not share that love by hitting the button below, or just forward it to a friend?