This post is part of a series on beliefs about social experimentation; if you missed the first post, start at the beginning of the series
Evaluations are conducted on L&D interventions that are not able to show impact.
Unfortunately, some L&D interventions take time to show their effects or to show impact. You train the sales force on a new selling approach and it may take a few quarters or a year to show an uptick because it takes a while for behaviors to change. Or, you invest in a new leadership model, but how do you know it’s had an effect on leadership and what would an effect even look like? In this “fast and approximate” business environment, leaders have no time to wait to see an impact. So, an evaluation may be conducted and efforts abandoned quickly if no impact was revealed, or funding may be pulled if a negative impact was shown. In order to halt these knee-jerk reactions, we need to set CLEAR impact goals with timing expectations, and then evaluate accordingly. If goals and timing are part of the intervention design, then the belief that evaluations are conducted on interventions that don’t show an impact is minimized because the stakeholders set impact expectations.