Why training doesn't change behaviour, and what a specific plan adds

Part of Measuring behaviour change.

Good intentions at 5 p.m.

Most training ends well. People say the session was useful, and many of them mean to use it. Then Monday arrives, the inbox is full, and the new habit loses to the old one.

That gap is old news in the research. Baldwin and Ford's 1988 review of transfer of training defined the goal as people applying what they learned to the job and keeping it up over time, and treated the shortfall as a serious, long-standing problem [1]. A later review by Grossman and Salas listed the factors most consistently linked to transfer: on the learner's side, things like ability, self-efficacy, motivation and seeing the training as useful; in the design, things like behavioural modelling, error management and realistic practice; and at work, a supportive climate, the opportunity to use the skill, and follow-up [2].

Notice how many of those sit outside the classroom. Training can create the intention. Whether it turns into behaviour depends a lot on what happens next.

Intentions aren't plans

The psychologist Peter Gollwitzer drew a useful line between a goal ("I will give better feedback") and an implementation intention: a plan that links a specific situation to a specific action ("When a one-to-one ends, I will name one thing that went well and one thing to change") [3]. His argument was that people who struggle to act on their goals can use these simple if-then plans to connect the moment to the behaviour in advance.

The evidence for this is broad. In a 2006 meta-analysis, Gollwitzer and Sheeran report that "findings from 94 independent tests showed that implementation intentions had a positive effect of medium-to-large magnitude" on goal attainment [4]. That's an average across many kinds of goals and studies, not a promise for any one programme.

One study, step by step

A 2002 study by Milne, Orbell and Sheeran shows the difference between motivating people and helping them plan [5]. Undergraduate students at a UK university, 248 in the final sample, were randomly put into one of three groups. One group was a control. One received a motivational leaflet about exercise. The third received the same motivational leaflet and, at a second session, was asked to make a specific plan for when and where they would exercise.

The motivational leaflet on its own raised people's intentions, but it didn't significantly change how much exercise they went on to report. Adding the specific plan made a large difference to reported exercise [5].

Two details matter. There was no "plan only" group: everyone who made a plan had also received the motivational leaflet. And exercise was self-reported. So the fair reading is: in one study, adding a specific plan to a motivational leaflet changed what people reported doing. It's a striking result, and the meta-analysis is the better guide to how big the effect usually is.

What this means for training design

If intention is the easy part, a programme should spend its last ten minutes on the hard part:

• End with a plan, not a summary. Ask each person to write one if-then plan: the situation they'll meet this week, and what they'll do when it happens.
• Make the situation concrete. "When I'm in a meeting" is too vague. "When the Monday pipeline review starts" is a cue.
• Involve the manager. Grossman and Salas's list puts support and the opportunity to perform at work alongside design [2]. A manager who knows the plan can make room for it.
• Check later. Ask at 30, 60 and 90 days whether the situation came up and what happened. That's how you find out whether the plan turned into behaviour.

None of this guarantees change. It moves the design from "did they enjoy it?" towards "did they do it?", which is where the evidence points.

General information on training design, not professional advice for your organisation.