What are the most effective ways to measure leadership training success?

1 The Kirkpatrick Model

The Kirkpatrick Model is a widely used framework for evaluating training effectiveness, developed by Donald Kirkpatrick in the 1950s. It consists of four levels of evaluation, each measuring a different aspect of learning outcomes. Level 1 assesses how satisfied and engaged learners are with the training through surveys, feedback forms, or interviews. Level 2 measures how much knowledge, skills, and attitudes learners have acquired from the training using tests, quizzes, or assessments. Level 3 evaluates how well the learners apply what they learned to their work environment through observation, performance reviews, or self-reports. Finally, Level 4 measures the impact of the training on organizational goals and outcomes using metrics, indicators, or benchmarks. The Kirkpatrick Model helps to identify the strengths and weaknesses of learning interventions; however, it has some limitations such as difficulty isolating effects of training from other factors and lack of evidence for causal relationships between levels.

2 The ROI Methodology

Another popular method for measuring leadership training success is the ROI Methodology, developed by Jack Phillips and Patricia Phillips in the 1980s. The ROI Methodology is an extension of the Kirkpatrick Model, adding a fifth level of evaluation:

- Level 5: Return on Investment (ROI). This level measures the financial return of the training compared to its cost. You can calculate the ROI by subtracting the cost of the training from the monetary benefits of the training, and dividing the result by the cost of the training. You can then express the ROI as a percentage or a ratio.

The ROI Methodology helps you to justify your leadership training investment and demonstrate its value to your stakeholders. However, it also has some challenges, such as the difficulty of converting intangible benefits into monetary values, the risk of overestimating or underestimating the benefits or costs of the training, and the lack of agreement on how to calculate and report the ROI.

3 The Success Case Method

The Success Case Method, developed by Robert Brinkerhoff in the 1990s, is a third method for measuring leadership training success. This qualitative approach focuses on finding and analyzing the best and worst examples of training impact. It consists of two main steps: surveying a representative sample of learners to identify who has used the training effectively and who has not, and then interviewing a few cases of high and low performers. The structured interview guide asks learners about their goals, actions, barriers, enablers, and evidence of impact. The Success Case Method helps uncover stories and insights behind success and failure, as well as identify the factors that influence learning transfer and application. However, there are drawbacks such as reliance on self-reported data, potential for bias or distortion, and lack of generalizability or comparability of findings.

4 The Balanced Scorecard

The Balanced Scorecard, developed by Robert Kaplan and David Norton in the 1990s, is a fourth method for measuring leadership training success. This strategic management tool helps to align learning objectives with organizational vision and strategy. It consists of four perspectives, each with its own goals, measures, targets, and initiatives: Financial Perspective (measuring the financial impact of the training with indicators such as revenue, profit, cost, or ROI); Customer Perspective (measuring the customer impact of the training with indicators such as retention, referrals, feedback, or complaints); Internal Process Perspective (measuring the process impact of the training with indicators such as quality, productivity, innovation, or compliance); and Learning and Growth Perspective (measuring the learning impact of the training with indicators such as skills, knowledge, attitudes, or behavior). The Balanced Scorecard helps to monitor and manage leadership training from a holistic and balanced view while linking learning outcomes to strategic outcomes. However, it also has some limitations such as complexity and time required for design and implementation; difficulty selecting and integrating appropriate indicators; and challenge in communication and cascading the scorecard across the organization.

5 Here’s what else to consider

This is a space to share examples, stories, or insights that don’t fit into any of the previous sections. What else would you like to add?