Getting the most from learning and development by measuring metrics

In an age of tighter budgets and shifting business priorities, learning and development teams face mounting pressure to prove their value. Gent Ahmetaj PhD, head of insights and analytics at Mindtools, explains that many organisations still don’t effectively measure whether their development efforts are working, and how they can change this.

Only 21% of learning and development (L&D) teams assess their impact on business outcomes. In most other areas of a business, such a low rate of evaluation would be cause for concern. But L&D often escapes this scrutiny - not because it lacks value, but because it’s difficult to measure, or worse, because it’s been allowed to drift into the background.

This avoidance of measurement comes at a cost. Without evidence of impact, L&D struggles to secure the investment it needs or have the strategic influence. What’s more, without proper evaluation, organisations miss the chance to take lessons from their own learning - missing out on vital feedback that could improve outcomes and help people work smarter.

For those working in consultancy, the value of L&D goes beyond internal development - it underpins client delivery, reputation and competitive advantage. High-performing consulting teams depend on continuously evolving expertise, whether in sector knowledge, analytical tools, leadership behaviours or communication skills. The speed at which consultants must adapt to client needs, market shifts and new technologies makes structured, measurable learning essential. It’s not just about staying sharp - it’s about staying credible.

Why L&D often goes unmeasured

There are several reasons measurement gets pushed aside. In some organisations, the problem is a lack of capability. Teams don’t have the tools or skills to assess performance effectively or don’t know where to start. In others, it’s a matter of priorities - L&D is seen as a support function rather than a performance driver, and measurement is pushed to the bottom of the to-do list.

Sometimes, the problem is psychological. There’s a fear that measurement will expose poor outcomes, which could damage the credibility of L&D. But avoiding evidence doesn’t make problems disappear - it simply means missed opportunities to adapt, improve, and build influence.

There’s also a common misconception that L&D impact is too hard to measure. Because learning outcomes can be intangible - like confidence, engagement or collaboration - it’s tempting to assume that nothing can be quantified. However, with the right approach, even softer outcomes can be linked to meaningful business results.

 Every other area of the business is expected to demonstrate its value. Sales track pipeline, marketing track conversion, and finance track return on investment. L&D should be no different. Good measurement doesn’t just justify spend – it informs decisions. It helps organisations understand what’s working and what isn’t. It highlights skills gaps, pinpoints where improvements are needed, and provides evidence to support future planning.

Even when results are mixed, measurement leads to progress. It enables L&D teams to refine their programmes, redirect resources, and demonstrate how learning drives performance.

There are four key dimensions that L&D teams should focus on:

• Relevancy - Learning should be directly tied to real work. Does it address the challenges people face in their roles? Is it aligned with the organisation’s goals and priorities?
• Overall experience - This includes how engaging, accessible, and practical the learning experience is. Are employees able to apply what they’ve learned straight away? Are the materials and formats suited to the way people work?
• Impact - What changes after the learning takes place? Are people using new skills? Are teams more productive, more collaborative, or more accurate in their work? Are there fewer mistakes, better outcomes, or improved decision-making?
• Triangulation - This means linking learning outcomes to other business data. Can you see a connection between training and improved retention, faster delivery, better customer feedback or higher team morale? The goal is not to find perfect causality but to build a picture using a range of data points.

From compliance to contribution

Too often, L&D is seen as a compliance exercise - a box to be ticked rather than a lever for change. But when learning is measured properly, it can play a central role in business success. Measurement allows L&D teams to improve their offer, show their value, and build a stronger voice in the organisation. For organisations as a whole, it unlocks the ability to grow, adapt and perform at a higher level - because a skilled and supported workforce is one of the most effective tools any business has.

For senior consultants, L&D also supports progression into leadership roles, offering development in areas such as strategic thinking, team management and commercial acumen.

The idea of measuring L&D can feel daunting - especially for teams that haven’t done it before. But the key is to start small and keep it simple. Choose one programme to evaluate - a manageable, low-risk initiative. Set clear goals. Collect baseline data. Measure what changes after the training. Talk to participants. Ask what they’ve learned and how they’re using it. Track relevant performance data over time. You don’t need a complex analytics suite to get started - just a clear purpose and some honest conversations.

Rather than reporting that “80% of employees completed a leadership course,” show how the training helped managers make better decisions, reduce turnover or improve team productivity. Rather than quoting satisfaction scores, share stories of how learning has helped people solve problems or take on new responsibilities. Executives want to see the impact, and stories, backed by evidence, are often the most powerful way to make the case.

Approach it with curiosity, not perfectionism. Measurement is a process of discovery. It’s about learning what works, adjusting where needed and making decisions based on evidence, not assumptions.