GUEST COLUMN.

Each year, state and local governments allocate substantial resources to employee training programs. Required courses are completed by staff, dashboards reflect high participation rates, and auditors note compliant records. On the surface, these indicators suggest that training systems are effective.

However, agency leaders are aware that underlying issues persist. Supervisors may still avoid addressing challenging topics, frontline employees often find ways to circumvent standard procedures, and policies are inconsistently applied in practice despite appearing to be followed on paper. Innovation initiatives frequently lose traction after their initial launch, and citizens’ experiences can vary widely depending on which staff member assists them.

The underlying issue is not an absence of training, but rather a fundamental misunderstanding of training’s intended purpose. Historically, many learning and development efforts have relied on the 70–20–10 model, which posits that only 10 percent of learning is derived from formal instruction, 20 percent from social interactions, and 70 percent from on-the-job experience.

Although this framework appears logical, within government settings it has perpetuated the erroneous belief that exposure to information alone leads to improved behaviors.

Extensive research indicates otherwise. As organizational theorists Chris Argyris and Donald Schön observed, individuals often possess knowledge of the appropriate actions, yet continue to rely on familiar patterns, especially when under stress. It is not knowledge alone that determines behavior, but rather the operational context.

On-the-job learning should build skills, but in government it often means unmanaged experience. Employees learn through trial and error, adopting norms from peers that may not match policy goals. Supervisors provide inconsistent coaching shaped by their own habits. Instead of intentional development, organizations face "behavioral drift," normalizing shortcuts and risk avoidance. This leads to compliance without real consistency or improvement. The issue lies in leadership design, not workforce capability.

Training discussions often center on course content, platform selection, and learner engagement. However, agency leaders should ask: “What behavior changes are needed for our policies or initiatives to succeed, and how can we enable them?” This approach positions training as a management strategy rather than just support.

If a behavior can't be observed and reinforced, change is unlikely. Research shows skill develops with repeated practice in realistic settings, so government training should embed structured exercises into daily work—like using job aids, practicing scenarios, pacing high-risk tasks, and clarifying escalation steps to address uncertainty.

Agency leaders have a special responsibility in this regard. They are uniquely positioned to ensure that policies, measurements, and incentives are aligned with the organization's stated values and desired behaviors.

Yet agency heads often underestimate the crucial role of frontline supervisors in driving behavior change. Supervisors typically lack coaching training, having been promoted for technical skills rather than their ability to provide feedback or reinforce positive actions. Behavior-first training gives supervisors practical tools to identify, support, and correct actions effectively, an approach proven by research to drive improvement through timely feedback.

Even the best training programs won't succeed if organizational systems reward inappropriate behaviors. For instance, when metrics favor speed over quality, a culture discourages raising concerns, or performance evaluations prioritize mere appearance of compliance instead of real results, these factors can undermine investments in training.

Behavior-first agencies assess impact using operational signals like reduced rework, earlier risk detection, increased consistency, enhanced service quality, and improved citizen outcomes, rather than just completions or satisfaction scores. As Kirkpatrick noted, true training value is seen in changes in behavior and results, not just participation.

The main issue with the 70–20–10 model is the belief that experience alone ensures learning. State and local governments benefit more from structured practice, effective supervision, and systems that promote good judgment than from additional content. When training is used to drive behavioral changes rather than just compliance, it becomes a strategic asset instead of a cost. In complex and resource-limited public sectors, this approach can be a critical leadership decision.

Five Questions Agency Heads Should Ask About Training

1.     Which specific behaviors are required to change for the initiative to be successful? When training objectives are limited to “understanding” or “awareness,” there is a risk that behavior change will not occur. Effective programs begin by clearly identifying the key observable actions by supervisors, frontline staff, or project teams that are critical to translating policy intent into practice.

2.     Where do employees face challenges when applying this policy at work? The problem usually isn't with the rule itself, but rather with situations that involve uncertainty, stress, or emotional tension. Leaders need to identify where employees pause, make up their own solutions, or bypass the system, and then create training that addresses those specific circumstances.

3.     How are supervisors equipped to reinforce the right behaviors? Frontline supervisors influence daily actions more than training modules. If managers lack training in observation, feedback, and early intervention, training won't last. Ensure supervisors have practical coaching tools, not just information.

4.     Do our metrics and incentives align with training? Employees respond to what is rewarded. If performance measures favor speed over quality, discourage escalation, or prioritize optics over real results, training will not succeed. Training and management systems must be aligned.

5.     How can we measure behavioral change? Completion and satisfaction rates don't prove impact. Leaders should track outcomes like less rework, earlier risk detection, more consistency, or better service. Without clear measures upfront, training results will be hard to see.

The contents of this Guest Column are those of the author, and not necessarily Barrett and Greene, Inc. 

#StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalHRManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentHumanResources #StateandLocalHR #StateandLocalHRandEmployeeTraining #CityHR #CountyHR #StateandLocalEmployeeTraining #IneffectiveTraining #MeasuringPublicSectorTrainingSuccess #StateandLocalTrainingResults #StateandLocalTrainingAndBehaviorChange #CityTrainingandBehaviorChange #CountyTrainingAndBehaviorChange #EmployeeTrainingAndBehaviorChange #StateandLocalPerformanceMeasurement #StateandLocalTrainingPerformance #StateandLocalPerformanceManagement #StateAndLocalTrainingManagement #StateandLocalTrainingMeasurement #StateandLocalSupervisorTraining #PublicSectorSupervisorTraining #MeasuringBehavioralChange #StateandLocalTrainingMetrics #StateandLocalTrainingIncentives #AligningTrainingAndPolicyGoals #CityTrainingandBehaviorChange #CountyTrainingandBehaviorChange #StateandLocalTrainingMetrics #HowAgencyHeadsCanFixTraining #BillBrantley #BrantleySocialSciencesApplications #B&GguestColumn #BarrettandGreeneInc