Blog

Why Generic Training Fails and Personalised Development Wins Two managers attend the same leadership training. Both rate it highly. Both leave with the same action plan. Six months later, one has transformed their team’s performance. The other has reverted to old habits. What’s the difference?

The Method That Captures 4-7x More ROI Your training programme just ended. Participants rated it 4.8 out of 5. The feedback forms are glowing. Leadership is delighted. Three months later, nothing has changed. Welcome to the satisfaction trap—where high ratings mask low transfer, and low transfer kills R.O.I. If you’re serious about capturing the 353% ROI that research proves training can deliver, it’s time to talk about delivery method. Because the gap between 10% transfer (lectures) and 70% transfer (simulations) is the difference between wasted budget and transformational impact.

A Conversation Every Finance Director Needs to Hear Picture this: Research shows training can deliver £4.53 for every £1 invested. That is a whopping 353% return. Your organisation spends £100,000 on leadership training. You should see £353,000 in measurable business value. If you invest £30,000 the return should be £105,900. The reality for most businesses with standard training delivery methods, even after twelve months later, they’ve captured perhaps 10% of that potential. If you were hoping for £353,000 you are probably missing £318,000 of your ROI. The money didn’t vanish. The potential was real. So what happened?

The Process Improvement Challenge Every organisation faces the same fundamental challenge: how do you unlock productivity by removing the hidden inefficiencies that hold teams back? As Chris Cooper, one of the world’s leading experts in enterprise upgrades and a founding partner at STRAKT, has demonstrated through his multiple Shingo Prize awards, the answer lies not just in understanding improvement methodologies, the answer lies in experiencing them firsthand. Traditional process improvement methodologies - Lean, Six Sigma, Kaizen - provide powerful frameworks. Yet organisations consistently struggle to translate theoretical knowledge into practical process and business improvement results. The gap between knowing what to do and actually making improvement work remains stubbornly wide.

During my years as a psychiatric nurse, I witnessed something that profoundly shaped my approach to business and leadership development: the artificial separation between personal well-being and professional performance is not just unhelpful - it's fundamentally flawed. You cannot separate the person from the professional. Mental health and well-being aren't separate from leadership effectiveness - they're fundamental to it. Yet walk into most corporate training programmes, and you'll find this truth conspicuously absent. Leadership development focuses on strategy and communication. Sales training emphasises techniques and processes. Management programmes cover delegation and performance management. Meanwhile, the human being experiencing stress, anxiety, burnout, or personal challenges is expected to somehow compartmentalise these experiences and perform optimally regardless.

Mistake: to blunder in choice; misinterpret; to make a wrong judgment of character or ability Do you see your mistakes as a gift or a burden? Show me someone who says he or she has rarely made a mistake, and I’ll suspect that person is not telling the truth or he or she is living in a pool of mediocrity. There are varying degrees of mistakes, but the way we respond to our mistakes and learn from them is more critical than making them in the first place.

The training room falls silent as Sarah, the only woman on the senior leadership team, shares her perspective on the company's new strategy. Around the table, her male colleagues nod politely, but their body language suggests they're already moving on to the next agenda item. Meanwhile, Ahmed, whose thoughtful insights have consistently impressed in smaller settings, remains quiet throughout the session, his valuable contributions lost to a facilitation style that favours the loudest voices. This scenario plays out in training rooms across the UK every day. Despite good intentions and significant investment in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, many organisations struggle to create learning environments where all participants can contribute their best thinking and achieve their full potential.

In this final blog of 4 I’m going to cover how the design of the online assessments and the workshop has developed over the years, together with some of the key Beliefs, Behaviours and Building Blocks that we all need to manage ourselves through the maze that is workplace politics. We have been using what we call the Universal Assessment for several years which was designed for the general population. It works well, as measured by feedback from users and clients. I’ve always been intrigued however, as to the need for a specific assessment for different genders.

In this third blog I'm going to cover some of the interesting findings from the delivery of the one day workshop and also some fascinating insights into the marketing once we had what we thought was a market ready product. Workshop Findings: I'm going to restrict myself to covering off the top 2 findings because in reality there were many! Number 1….

You may recall from the previous blog that I had promised a new client an influencing skills workshop which was to include a session on the subject of ‘Workplace politics’. After the trip south on the train where my business partner has accused me of lying (remember the ‘intention’ response – more later) I set about finding out what materials were out there and what we could usefully buy (or borrow) to include into the workshop. In a nutshell, there was very little. Most if not all materials that appeared were related to Politics with a BIG P – the politics within a Country/Party/Council but very little on the topic of politics in the workplace – politics with a small ‘p’.