Training Metrics Are Still Hiding a Diagnosis Problem

HR Briefing reports Noah Rabinowitz of Korn Ferry urging L&D teams to test whether programs close specific skill gaps and contribute to tangible business outcomes. It also says the learning and development market is worth $400 billion, yet most organizations still cannot show that training moves business results. Rabinowitz also argues that completion rates and learner satisfaction do not show whether anyone learned something useful.

The useful reading of that is narrower than the headline. When leaders defend spend with completions and satisfaction scores, the problem is often not measurement alone. It starts earlier, with weak diagnosis. If the performance gap is loosely defined, the measurement conversation goes wrong before the program begins.

That is why I would check the work itself before approving another reporting layer. In many companies, broad programs are launched against labels such as leadership, communication or AI fluency. There is no baseline, no clear comparison point and no business owner for the result. In that setup, a better dashboard only describes activity more cleanly. It does not improve the investment decision.

A stricter business impact standard would do more than tidy up reporting. It would force choices about which programs deserve funding, which ones need a narrower use case and which ones should stop. It also affects manager time and how quickly people become effective, because a vague program usually creates extra coaching, extra interpretation and slower progress in the work. The CLO may lead this, but accountability usually sits with the business leader who owns the outcome and with HR when role expectations are unclear.

I would begin with the business problem, then look at the task or decision that is failing, define the capability gap in observable terms and set a baseline. Only after that would I decide whether training is the right response. In some cases the constraint is process, tooling, manager practice or decision rights instead. Moving faster without that diagnosis usually scales waste.

There is a clear limit here. HR Briefing is reporting one viewpoint, not proving that the whole market has changed practice. Some organizations may already measure training impact well, and direct attribution to business outcomes can be hard when several factors are changing at once. Even with that caution, I would hold one line: a material L&D investment should not be scaled if no one can state the target performance shift, the baseline and how contribution will be judged.