Beyond the Training Room – Turning Insights into Impact

Beyond the Training Room – Turning Insights into Impact

Traditionally, a training session ends with a recap and a round of feedback. In these face-to-face conversations, participants’ responses are often overwhelmingly positive. Usually, those who enjoyed the training are the most likely to speak up, while few participants feel comfortable telling the facilitator directly that they did not find it particularly valuable.

Depending on the questions asked, we hear that participants would recommend the training, that their expectations were met, and that the trainer was well prepared and explained the content clearly.

To capture these otherwise fleeting, subjective impressions, we at MDI have used our “1-Minute Feedback” for many years: a short questionnaire consisting of four questions, rated on a scale from 0 to 6, with 6 being the highest possible score. An open-text field also allows participants to share additional comments about the training.

Four questions – different perspectives

Our feedback questions explore different aspects of the learning experience:

• Would I recommend the training or coaching?
• Were my expectations met?
• Was the trainer well prepared, and did they deliver the content effectively?
• Am I confident that I can apply what I have learned?

A closer analysis of the responses reveals that, on average, the final statement — “I am confident that I can apply what I have learned” — consistently scores slightly lower than the others. In other words, confidence in applying the learning at work receives the lowest rating.

This does not make the positive feedback any less valuable. But it raises a crucial question: What is missing between “That was a good training session” and “I feel confident putting this into practice at work”?

Or, to use a sports analogy: Why are participants unable to reproduce their training performance when it matters — in the workplace?

The final question looks ahead. It shifts the focus from the training experience itself to what comes next: the next difficult feedback conversation, a conflict within the team, or a decision made under time pressure. In that sense, it is less an evaluation of the training and more an assessment of readiness for what follows.

One distinction is important: a lower score does not, in itself, demonstrate a lack of learning or a failure to transfer that learning into practice. It initially reflects participants’ subjective confidence in their ability to apply what they have learned. Whether they actually use it needs to be assessed separately.

Nevertheless, we should take this signal seriously. Believing we can successfully use a new skill is one relevant factor in transferring learning to the workplace.

What might explain the lower score?

A single number cannot tell us the reason. Instead, it should serve as a starting point for further questions.

“I understand it — but I haven’t practiced it enough yet.”

Understanding a conversation model, for example, is not the same as being able to use it in an emotionally charged situation.

Participants may not know how to apply it. What they may need is another opportunity to try it themselves, receive feedback, and try again. Realistic practice, a constructive approach to mistakes, and subsequent opportunities to apply the learning can all support transfer.

At MDI, we have developed a range of AI-powered role-play scenarios for precisely these situations. They allow participants to practice and refine what they have learned in realistic situations, both during the training and, importantly, afterwards. The AI provides feedback, with a choice of different feedback models.

“It works in training. But will it work in my situation?”

The example used in the training may have been clear to everyone. Yet participants’ own situations often turn out to be more complex than the practice scenario: an experienced team member responds dismissively, an unresolved conflict is affecting the team, or only ten minutes are available for an important conversation.

This raises the question of how closely the practice scenarios reflect participants’ actual challenges. It is therefore important not to oversimplify exercises, but to build them around realistic, specific situations from participants’ working lives.

“I don’t yet know whether my work environment will support it.”

Applying learning is not simply a matter of individual competence. It also requires opportunity and support. In most cases, workplace conditions differ considerably from those in a training session.

What happens when a leader wants to delegate differently after the training, but everyone around them continues to escalate every decision? Or when they want to provide regular feedback but find neither the time nor the support to do so?

Research on training transfer shows that support from both leaders and colleagues is relevant to the application of learning.

What we can change in practice

First, let us be clear: the goal is not to persuade participants to give higher ratings at the end of a training session. What matters is not the score, but the outcome.

More important than “What have I learned?” is “What can I apply from this training?” Our goal must therefore be to build a practical bridge between learning and everyday work.

1. Ask the crucial follow-up question

Alongside the rating, we could ask:

“What else do you need to feel confident applying what you have learned?”

Or, more specifically:

“In which situation do you already feel confident — and in which do you not?”

This helps us distinguish between a need for further practice, a clearer connection to real work, support in the workplace, or something else entirely.

2. Create practice loops rather than one-off exercises

One possible approach is to work through a real situation, receive targeted feedback, and then try the same situation again.

Rather than adding more content, we should provide more opportunities to build confidence through focused practice. These practice and feedback opportunities can be integrated into the training itself and into follow-up learning activities.

Here, too, support after the training — such as the AI-powered role-plays described earlier — is key to helping participants change or adapt their behavior.

3. Make the first application step specific and visible

“I will give more feedback” is an intention. For a transfer plan, I would make it more specific:

• Who will I have the next conversation with?
• When will it take place?
• What specific behaviour do I want to try?
• What might get in the way?
• Who can give me feedback afterwards?

Action plans, peer exchange, and conversations with leaders are established approaches to supporting application after training.

Exercises and scenarios must reflect participants’ actual working situations as closely as possible, rather than relying on hypothetical cases disconnected from their experience.

4. Do not leave the transfer entirely to the participants

Even before the training, participants and their leaders could clarify:

What should be different afterwards? Where will there be a suitable opportunity to try something out? What support will be needed?

This makes application a shared responsibility rather than an additional expectation that participants are left to manage on their own.

Research highlights the importance of a supportive work environment and genuine opportunities to apply learning. It therefore makes sense to build post-training activities into the programme design from the outset. Follow-up peer-learning groups, transfer labs, coaching, and the involvement of participants’ leaders can all be valuable elements.

5. Ask different questions after the training

The 1-Minute Feedback provides an important snapshot. Six to twelve weeks after the training, it is useful to ask follow-up questions that reflect the time elapsed and explore how participants have applied their learning:

• What specifically have you tried?
• What worked, and what did not work yet?
• What changes have you observed?
• What supported or prevented application?

This complements the immediate assessment with experience from everyday work.

Transfer is not a single moment. Initial attempts, feedback, and further adjustments can develop into changed behavior over time. A second or third feedback cycle, including one around six months after the training, can help capture longer-term changes.

The lowest score can prompt the most valuable question

Naturally, every trainer, consultant, and project manager appreciates excellent training evaluations. At the same time, this kind of affirmation carries the risk of interpreting the training and its design as “close to perfection”.

That does not mean we should rush to question every training programme. Rather, we need to understand what support is still missing between learning and action. In my view, this is one of the central responsibilities of L&D: not only to create a compelling learning experience, but also to design for transfer.

A noticeably lower rating should therefore not be dismissed as an unwelcome judgement or a sign of a negative attitude. Instead, it can provide both an incentive and a useful indication of where the training or its transfer support could be improved.

Of course, some negative feedback may reflect a participant’s mood more than the quality of the training. The open-text comments, where provided, can often help us understand the context. If they explain the negative rating or highlight unmet expectations or missing content, they should also inform improvements to the training where appropriate.

What have you experienced when it comes to the gap between high training satisfaction and lower confidence in applying the learning — and what helps you close it?

What serves you next?