Kirkpatrick Model Implementation

*** SPOILER *** Some early data from our 2025 LEADx Leadership Development Benchmark Report that I’m too eager to hold back: MOST leadership development professionals DO NOT MEASURE LEVELS 3&4 of the Kirkpatrick model (behavior change & impact). 41% measure level 3 (behavior change) 24% measure level 4 (impact) Meanwhile, 92% measure learner reaction. I mean, I know learner reaction is easier to measure. But if I have to choose ONE level to devote my time, energy, and budget to… And ONE level to share with senior leaders… I’m at LEAST choosing behavior change! I can’t help but think: If you don’t measure it, good luck delivering on it. 🤷♂️ This is why I always advocate to FLIP the Kirkpatrick Model. Before you even begin training, think about the impact you want to have and the behaviors you’ll need to change to get there. FIRST, set up a plan to MEASURE baseline, progress, and change. THEN, start training. Begin with the end in mind! ___ P.S. If you can’t find the time or budget to measure at least level 3, you probably want to rethink your program. There might be a simple, creative solution. Or, you might need to change vendors. ___ P.P.S EXAMPLE SIMPLE WAY TO MEASURE LEVELS 3&4 Here’s a simple, data-informed example: You want to boost team engagement because it’s linked to your org’s goals to: - improve retention - improve productivity You follow a five-step process: 1. Measure team engagement and manager effectiveness (i.e., a CAT Scan 180 assessment). 2. Locate top areas for improvement (i.e., “effective one-on-one meetings” and “psychological safety”). 3. Train leaders on the top three behaviors holding back team engagement. 4. Pull learning through with exercises, job aids, monthly power hours to discuss with peers and an expert coach. 5. Re-measure team engagement and manager effectiveness. You should see measurable improvement, and your new focus areas for next year. We do the above with clients every year... ___ P.P.S. I find it funny that I took a lot of heat for suggesting we flip the Kirkpatrick model, only to find that most people don’t even measure levels 3&4…😂

Bridging the gaps in Kirkpatrick to prove enablement’s impact: Reminder… The four levels in Kirkpatrick: 1) reaction 2) learning 3) behavior 4) results Problem: Almost no one gets to level 4. Why? The levels aren’t actually connected. Just because someone reacts favorably, doesn’t mean they learned. Just because someone learned, doesn’t mean they’ll change their behavior. Just because the change behavior, doesn’t mean you’ll see results. You need to bridge the gaps. Here’s how: From 1 —> 2 Bridge: Effectiveness Perceptions (See Will Thalheimer’s “Performance Focused Learner Surveys”) These ask questions to glean insights about the effectiveness of the intervention (not CSAT). - did you receive enough practice? - was practice realistic? - did feedback guide your performance? - were OTJ resources provided? - did you practice using those resources? - is your manager supporting you? - etc These indicate your intervention has a high likelihood it was effective at imparting new knowledge/skills. — From 2 —> 3 Bridge: Competence Not “competency” (ie do you know it / do you have the skills). But COMPETENCE - can you demonstrate that you can make the kinds decisions/perform the types of tasks you’ll need to OTJ? Acquiring new knowledge or skills is meaningless if you can’t apply them correctly OTJ. — From 3 —> 4 Bridge: Outputs What are the effects of the behavior? What is produced when they are correctly applied (and to what standard)? Something valuable ought to come of them, otherwise it’s behavior for behavior’s sake. What’s produced? A document? A report? A relationship? An assessment? A decision? Behavior means nothing if it doesn’t produce valuable work. BUT…these outputs mean nothing if they aren’t anchored to business outcomes. — This is why to apply this framework, you always need to start with the desired outcome. What are the results you seek to support and influence? Deconstruct these down to influenceable leading indicators. What outputs do those influenceable outcomes depend on? To what standard must they be produced to ensure the outcomes happen? What behaviors must be applied to produce them? What obstacles are in the way? How must performers demonstrate they’re competent? What must they learn/develop or use? You get the idea…

As part of our 90-day post-training impact plan, I continued field visits last week and covered the remaining Castania counters to reinforce learning, coach on the job, and review execution on the ground. The objective is simple: move beyond training delivery and check whether learning is translating into real behavior at the counter. What I observed was extremely encouraging: - Counter teams have completed their handouts and clearly recall key learning points - High-margin SKUs are now positioned on the front display across most counters - Teams are approaching customers more confidently and initiating conversations - Upselling by weight is actively being practiced and is already showing results - Selling scripts are being used naturally, not mechanically - Teams are increasingly confident discussing premium products and benefits I also reinforced the use of our Sales Coach AI Agent, allowing teams to practice live scenarios. What stood out was how quickly they connected the tool to their daily work—using it to customize upsell ideas, cross-sell combinations, display decisions, and customer approach scripts specific to their own counters. This consistency across stores tells me one important thing: when learning is practical, relevant, reinforced on the job, and supported with the right tools, behavior change happens. From an L&D perspective, this initiative is a strong example of applying Kirkpatrick Level 3 and Level 4 in a meaningful way: - Level 3 – observing real behavior change through coaching, display execution, and selling practices - Level 4 – linking those behaviors to sales and margin performance over a 30-60-90 day period Proud of the Castania counter teams for embracing this journey, and excited to continue tracking the impact as we move through the remaining milestones. This is the kind of work that makes L&D truly matter to the business. #Learningstrategist #learninganddevelopment #FMCG #retailsales #kirkpatrick #businessimpact #coachingculture #capabilitybuilding #AliBinAli

Corporate training often feels like throwing seeds onto concrete. We mandate attendance, deliver information in a single format, and expect immediate growth. For neurodivergent professionals, standardized assessments rarely measure actual competency. They simply measure the ability to take a standardized test. Dr. Kirkpatrick developed a renowned model to evaluate training across four sequential levels: Reaction, Learning, Behavior, and Results. It is a brilliant clinical framework. But if we want it to work for a neurodiverse ecosystem, we must change how we measure growth at every level. Here are 10 neuro-inclusive ways to assess learning, mapped to the Kirkpatrick Model: 1/ Pre-Learning Reality: Live information dumps overwhelm working memory. Practice: Send reading materials 48 hours early so participants can process at their own pace. 2/ Advance Inquiry Reality: Spontaneous Q&A triggers anxiety and limits participation. Practice: Allow the team to submit questions anonymously before the live session. 3/ Regulation Pauses (Level 1) Reality: Long blocks of forced attention drain executive function. Practice: Mandate five minute biological processing breaks every 45 minutes to stretch, stim, or regulate. 4/ Multi Modal Anchors (Level 2) Reality: Auditory lectures fail visual and kinesthetic learners. Practice: Provide options. Let them watch a live demonstration, read a case study, or review a video. 5/ Structured Breakouts (Level 2) Reality: Unstructured group work creates heavy social ambiguity. Practice: Provide a strict, written rubric for peer roleplay so expectations are perfectly clear. 6/ Collaborative Polling (Level 2) Reality: Timed, silent quizzes spike cortisol and block recall. Practice: Use live polls or collaborative quizzes where small groups talk out answers before submitting. 7/ Flexible Demonstration (Level 2) Reality: Written tests do not equal practical mastery. Practice: Let employees choose to prove competency via a written summary, audio reflection, or practical demonstration. 8/ Implementation Maps (Level 3) Reality: Information without a plan quickly withers. Practice: Give participants time at the end to write down exactly how they plan to apply the new skill. 9/ Supervisor Support (Level 3) Reality: Managers often do not know how to support new habits. Practice: Provide supervisors with exact questions to check on the new skill without micromanaging. 10/ Reverse Cultivation (Level 4) Reality: We often train for skills the current environment does not support. Practice: Define the final organizational result first. Work backward to ensure the ecosystem allows that new behavior to survive. We must stop blaming the individual when the system is too rigid. By diversifying how we assess learning, we give every mind a fair chance to grow. How does your organization currently measure if a training was successful?