“When discussing the workforce, it's crucial to explore the deeper meaning of work. What does it signify in production? How does it impact customer loyalty and longevity? Our model focuses on genuinely understanding and assessing our people. We start by evaluating the workforce from a people perspective and work towards cultivating a supportive culture," says Dr. Jim Kirkpatrick, Author and Creator of the New World Kirkpatrick Model, in an interview during Qualtrics X4 Sydney.

Speaking on building a high-performance team culture, Dr. Kirkpatrick added, “Once a supportive culture is established, the focus shifts to the actual work. A thriving culture is key to meeting and exceeding customer expectations. Technological advancements like AI won't be effective without a strong culture first. Over the years, I’ve emphasised the importance of culture, leading with the human element rather than focusing solely on new technologies. This shift from the traditional model of reaction, learning, behaviour, and results to a more artful approach lays the foundation for scientific application in any business or organisation.”

How do systemic issues, environmental changes, and societal shifts influence how people think, lead to neurophysiological changes, and affect their growth, responses, interactions with others, and decision-making when they are in positions of power?

Explaining the primary objectives of the Kirkpatrick Model, Dr. Kirkpatrick says, “It's not just about people coming together and enjoying each other's company. There's important work to be done, and performance is crucial. Learning and development involve constant training, but at some point, we must say, 'Okay, you're ready. Now let's work together to accomplish our goals.'

The model emphasises that once we build a supportive culture, we should focus on collaborative work that drives excellent performance and achieves desired outcomes. Training alone won't achieve this; it must be translated into actual performance with accountability, support, and excellence.”

Reflecting on the role of HR professionals, he added, “While the concept seems simple, it's challenging due to various obstacles, including the heavy focus on learning and development. HR often emphasises continuous training, but learning must eventually convert into performance. Many people I work with hesitate to push for performance, fearing they might upset someone.”

How do you address the gap between learning for the sake of learning and the disconnect between what employers say employees need to do and what employees think they need to learn?

Sharing the evolution of the Kirkpatrick Model, developed in the 1950s, Dr. Kirkpatrick says, “It starts with ensuring people react favourably to learning by engaging them and making it relevant. They learn the material, but level 3, focusing on behaviour and on-the-job learning with reinforcement and rewards, is the real challenge. This level involves converting learning into performance, requiring accountability, support, and team building. Honest conversations about struggles and finding solutions are key.”

“A big part of the Kirkpatrick Model is evaluation. People often think it’s just about level one evaluations—using smile sheets. They evaluate level two with knowledge tests and level three with surveys 90 days later. Level four can seem too lofty. We've focused on connecting learning to performance, integrating learning into performance rather than treating them separately. Learning on the job should be as significant as formal classroom learning, if not more,” he explained.

Speaking on integrating training and performance to add value, not seen as a cost centre, he emphasised, “If people are only focused on training and formal learning, senior leaders often see them as a cost centre. They need to bridge the gap from learning to performance to be viewed as valuable. This means getting involved in performance, not just in helping people learn and develop. It's about integrating all these aspects together rather than isolating the four levels, which is still a common practice.”

How do you get senior leadership's buy-in from the start to ensure training is integrated with performance and seen as valuable?

Reflecting on this most commonly asked question, Dr. Kirkpatrick shared effective strategies:

1. First, understand what's important to the senior leadership. Become a dual citizen and bilingual in their concerns. Meet them halfway by asking about their people, performance, and outcomes. When they see your interest in performance, they'll realise you care about more than just training. That's the key to getting their buy-in. For example, if they mention struggling with retention or performance, don't immediately pitch your training solution. Listen and understand their challenges. This builds trust and shows you're interested in working together, not just promoting a programme. It shifts the focus from valuing training as a cost to seeing it as integral to achieving shared goals.
2. Additionally, approach with true empathy. Resist the temptation to sell a training program when presented with real work issues. Instead of suggesting a new program, take training directly into the workplace to ensure it's connected to performance needs, rather than being seen as disjointed and separate.
3. Lastly, connecting with line managers focused on performance can be more effective. Eventually, they will advocate for you, telling higher-ups that the Kirkpatrick approach helps their team perform better. Work through line managers who are already invested in performance, as they are more likely to listen to their managers before a learning professional. This approach is often overlooked due to traditional thinking that insists on getting direct buy-in from top management. As a result, training is seen as a necessary evil and a cost rather than a valuable tool.”

How do you ensure that HR functions, often designed by senior HR, are valued by those in the trenches who must implement them, and not seen merely as cost centres?

Human Resources is crucial, but not just in the classic sense of HR, orientation, or onboarding. It means actively engaging with employees in the workplace rather than leaving things to chance. Instead of front-loading all training and onboarding and then hoping for the best, we build relationships with supervisors to ensure they treat their people with care, hold them accountable, and focus on performance," emphasised Dr. Kirkpatrick..

Why do you think people often overlook the logical approach of leveraging connections, step by step, to reach decision-makers at the top?

“I think for a few reasons. First, they fear upsetting the supervisors, who might think we're coming in to audit them and make them look bad,” explains Dr Kirkpatrick.

Second, tradition plays a role. The mindset of "train, train, train, and hope for the best" is deeply ingrained.

Third, there's a tremendous lobby in organisations, journals, expo halls, and talent development conferences that emphasises learning as the key to success. This lobby promotes a focus on learning because there's a lot of money in it, unlike the less lucrative conversations and support aspects. 

Despite these challenges, I think we're making good progress by approaching it positively and breaking through these barriers.”

Do you think for a culture change to be effective, all foundational elements must be addressed before employees can fully embrace the new approach?

Dr. Kirkpatrick advised, “To create change, start with one unit or group and demonstrate success. Show that this approach works without bragging, and over time, this spark will lead to critical mass. We need to move beyond theory and choose a program that can show serious results within six months through performance and collaboration. Once we achieve this, we can take it on the road and inspire others.

The key is proving that people matter by getting real work done. This approach can light a path for other cultures still stuck in stereotypes. By sharing your success with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), you can create a movement and achieve critical mass.

The goal is to ensure compliance with performance-based results. The regulations are already in place, stating that employees must be trained to learn, perform better, and contribute to the organisation's success. They require gathering information on learning, performance, and results, and modifying behaviours if results aren't achieved. However, these regulations haven't been emphasised enough. In the revised version, we plan to lead with these regulations as the current OPM standards, not as something driven by Kirkpatrick, as our goal is to ensure these guidelines are followed to achieve measurable results through performance.”

You may also like:

• Addressing employee concerns NOW is the future: Fazeela Gopalani
• The art of dynamic leadership: Rapid fire with Iman Al Qasim

In your experience, how much change are you seeing in the way people view it? Are mindsets changing much at different levels of the organisation, or are people still clinging to the traditional approach?

“There's been lots of change in learning, with concepts like microlearning, which I call 'micro performance boosts,' bringing it directly into the workplace,” said Dr. Kirkpatrick. “Advances in AI and other technologies have made learning more relevant to performance needs. However, evaluation methods have seen very little change. We still rely on 'smile sheets' after classes and too much on knowledge tests and 90-day surveys.

Waiting 90 days for a survey is too long, as people often revert to old habits. Evaluation needs to be continuous rather than sporadic. The current practice of using a single source for evaluation—like a test or survey—doesn't provide enough good intelligence. We should apply this approach in learning and performance evaluation by talking to people, observing them, and using various methods to get a true picture of what's happening. This way, we can make intelligent decisions about necessary changes.”

Given that evaluation methods haven't evolved as much as learning and technology, do you believe this poses a risk to the future effectiveness of learning?

Dr. Kirkpatrick explained, “The risk with current evaluation methodologies is that they don't provide accurate intelligence. People aren't seeing the truth about what's happening. Evaluation needs to focus more on the workplace rather than relying on 60 or 90-day surveys.

We should start evaluating early and frequently, taking the pulse soon after major training—on day three, day six, and day eight. Waiting too long means losing the opportunity to make timely adjustments. By continuously checking in, talking to people, and observing them, we can ensure we're on the right course. This way, in 60 days, we're not dealing with a train wreck but fostering success by making necessary changes along the way.”

Does this mean that trainers bear a significant responsibility to continuously incorporate feedback into their methods to ensure effectiveness?

Dr. Kirkpatrick shared, “When I work with trainers, I say, 'You're not just an instructional designer anymore; you're a L&D architect.' What does that mean? Instead of just designing a class, they will architect not only the class but also what happens afterward. They'll build a support network and accountability measures to ensure the training is implemented effectively. We want them to design a comprehensive package, moving beyond traditional instruction. Similarly, trainers need to put on a different hat. They should spend time getting to know people, asking how things are going, and offering help. They become dual citizens, balancing their roles between training and ongoing support.”