From Knowledge Acquisition to Behaviour Change: Why Learning Alone Doesn't Create Change

The pattern most leaders recognise

A team attends a great course. Feedback is glowing. There are "aha" moments, genuine insights and visible enthusiasm. Everyone leaves energised and equipped with new frameworks.

Within weeks, old habits return. The new language fades. The needle barely moves.

That's because behaviour does not change simply because someone attended a course. You cannot "teach" behaviour in the same way as knowledge. You can expose people to ideas, but change only happens when those ideas are applied, reflected on and reinforced in context.

Learning provides the spark, but behaviour change requires a system.

Training works, but training alone isn't enough

World-class organisations invest in training for good reason: well-designed programs spark mindset shifts, build new skills and align teams around a shared vision. Research confirms the value, companies with comprehensive training programs see 218 per cent higher income per employee, and 92 per cent of employees say high-quality training positively impacts their engagement.

Training is an organisational engine for growth. The question is not whether to invest in it, but how to ensure that investment translates into lasting behaviour change.

Whilst training builds knowledge and capability, only 12 per cent of learners consistently apply new skills back on the job. The gap between what people learn and what they actually do in the workplace remains stubbornly wide.

This is not a failure of training. It's a failure to complete the system around it.

Why information alone doesn't create change

Traditional corporate learning often focuses heavily on content delivery: more information, more slides, more frameworks.

Knowledge is everywhere, just because you know more, doesn't mean you will do better.

A review published via eLearning Industry found that most conventional training methods have minimal long-term impact on measurable behaviour or performance outcomes. McKinsey's work on leadership development found that even world-class programs only succeed when participants apply new behaviours in safe, real-world contexts, not when they simply "learn" them.

It's the difference between learning about swimming and jumping into a pool. Behaviour doesn't shift through content; it shifts through experience, feedback, and reflection.

The insight here is not that training fails, it's that training is necessary but not sufficient. What separates programs that drive real change from those that fade is not the quality of content, but the ecosystem built around it.

Experience is the real teacher

This idea isn't new. In 1984, David Kolb introduced the Experiential Learning Cycle, a framework that remains one of the most useful tools for translating learning into behaviour, though researchers continue to debate exactly how and why it works.

Kolb proposed that people don't learn by absorbing information; they learn by cycling through four stages:

1. 1. Concrete Experience – doing something or encountering a situation.
2. 2. Reflective Observation – reviewing and making sense of what happened.
3. 3. Abstract Conceptualisation – drawing conclusions or forming insights.
4. 4. Active Experimentation – applying those insights to the next experience.

When learning skips these stages, for example, by stopping at conceptualisation (the classroom), it stays theoretical. Behaviour change happens when people complete the cycle: when they try, reflect, adapt, and repeat.

Kolb's model is useful for organizing thinking, but the research supporting exactly how and when experiential cycles produce behavior change is still evolving. What we know for certain is that practice plus reflection matters far more than content alone, even if Kolb's specific four-stage mechanism isn't the only path. Every part of the cycle matters.

What actually drives behaviour change:
The research

Behavioural science reveals something important: change is contextual, social, and reinforced, not just cognitive.

Research consistently identifies several conditions that predict whether training will transfer into sustained behaviour change. But here's what's critical: they're not equally weighted.

The COM-B model (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation → Behaviour) is often used to think about behaviour systematically, but research shows that opportunity (the environmental context and support) is more predictive of sustained behavior change than either capability or motivation. This isn't intuitive to most leaders. We tend to think: "If people know what to do and want to do it, they'll do it." But neuroscience and organizational research suggest otherwise: the environment shapes behavior more powerfully than individual will.

Here's what research consistently shows actually matters:

1. 1. Clarity – People must know exactly what behaviour is expected, not just the principle behind it. "Communicate better" doesn't work. "Summarise every meeting with three clear decisions" does.
2. 2. Capability – They need the skills and tools to perform it. Understanding isn't enough; they must practice the actual behavior. A manager trained in "active listening" but never practiced responding to a real employee concern will likely revert to directive management under pressure.
3. 3. Opportunity – The environment has to support the new behaviour (time, permission, systems, peer support). A manager eager to coach but working in a culture where speed is valued over development will face friction. The system signals what's actually valued.
4. 4. Feedback and reinforcement – Immediate feedback and small wins help encode the new pattern into habit. Without reinforcement at strategic intervals (24 hours after learning, then weekly for a month, then monthly), the brain defaults to existing neural pathways. It's neuroscience, not laziness.
5. 5. Modelling and psychological safety – People copy what leaders do, not what slides say. If leaders don't visibly model the change and create safety to experiment, old norms win. This is culture in action.

The crucial insight from research: These five conditions aren't separate levers, they're a system. And when researchers measure which factor most strongly predicts transfer of learning in organizations, work environment factors (supervisor support, peer support, transfer climate, organizational systems) consistently outweigh trainee factors (motivation, ability) or training design factors alone.

This means: audit your environment before you build training.

Why people revert (and how to stop it)

Your draft correctly identifies that "old habits return," but the mechanism matters because it determines the fix.

People revert for three distinct reasons:

1. 1. Memory decay (without reinforcement): Without spaced practice, 70% of learning evaporates within 24 hours. This is Ebbinghaus' forgetting curve — not a reflection on learner capability, but how memory works. The fix is strategic reinforcement: 24 hours, then 1 week, then 1 month, then monthly.
2. 2. Environmental misalignment: The system rewards the old behaviour or fails to support the new one. A manager trained in coaching returns to a workplace where speed is rewarded, delegation is viewed as weakness, or they have no protected time for one-on-ones. The environment signals: "What you learned isn't actually valued here." The fix is environmental redesign before (or alongside) training.
3. 3. Identity and social norm mismatch: People don't see themselves as "the type" who does this behaviour, or peer norms actively contradict the new behavior. A manager trained in vulnerability might not see himself as "a vulnerable leader", or his peers might mock coaching as "soft." Without identity internalization and peer support, behavior doesn't stick. The fix is culture work: modelling from leaders, stories of success, peer recognition, and connecting the behavior to organizational identity.

Understanding which is driving reversion is crucial. If it's memory decay, more training won't help, you need reinforcement systems. If it's environmental misalignment, you need to change systems and manager behavior. If it's identity/culture, you need to shift how the organization talks about and recognizes the behavior.

Designing learning that actually sticks: Five concurrent priorities

These aren't sequential steps; they happen in parallel. Start with environment, layer in knowledge and practice, build reinforcement, and embed in culture over time.

Specific behaviors are actionable. Vague concepts feel too large to grasp.

Fix the environment before (or during) training. Removing one obstacle often does more than adding another training module.

Research shows that learning with practice produces dramatically better retention and transfer than passive absorption of information. Practice isn't optional; it's where the learning actually happens.

• Spaced practice: First review within 24 hours, then weekly for a month, then monthly. Build it into regular routines (1-on-1s, team meetings, peer groups), so reinforcement happens automatically.
• Regular feedback: Weekly feedback corrects drift faster than monthly reviews. Make progress visible so people see they're improving.
• Small wins: Celebrate early progress publicly. Social recognition reinforces behavior more than individual effort alone.

Reinforcement doesn't need to be elaborate. It needs to be consistent and embedded in daily work rhythm, not a separate "learning activity".

• Frequency of the new behaviour (Are managers coaching weekly? Are teams having structured reflections?)
• Confidence levels (Pre/post self-assessments)
• Peer and supervisor feedback (Is the change visible to others?)
• Business outcomes (Did retention improve? Did decision quality increase? Did cycle time decrease?)

Behaviour measures take longer to show results than knowledge tests, but they show what actually matters: Did the training change how people work?

The role of leaders and culture: Why environment is the multiplier

Here's the uncomfortable truth: culture eats one-off training for breakfast.

If leaders still reward speed over reflection, or control over collaboration, or individual achievement over collective development, no amount of workshops will drive change. People observe what's actually valued (what gets rewarded, promoted, and recognized) and conform to that.

Behaviour change becomes sustainable when:

• Leaders visibly model the new behaviour. Not in a workshop, but in daily work. Managers who coach their teams. Leaders who admit mistakes. Organisations where disagreement is welcomed.
• Psychological safety is built. People need permission to experiment without fear of punishment. This means leaders tolerating mistakes early, celebrating effort, and creating space for risk-taking.
• Small wins are recognized publicly. When people see peers succeeding with new behaviors, adoption spreads. Social proof is powerful.
• The behaviour is connected to organizational identity. It becomes "how we do things here," not "a program we're running." This happens gradually through repeated stories, consistent modelling, and integration into hiring, promotion, and performance conversations.

Without this cultural layer, even well-designed training is temporary. With it, behavior becomes self-reinforcing.

Why environment matters more than you think

Here's what research reveals that leaders often miss:

When organizations struggle with training transfer, they usually blame the participants ("They didn't apply it") or the training ("It wasn't practical enough"). In reality, the work environment is often the limiting factor.

Research shows that organizational factors, supervisor support, peer support, systems alignment, and transfer climate, are more predictive of sustained behaviour change than individual factors (motivation, ability) or training design alone.

What this means in practice: A highly motivated manager with excellent training will still struggle if:

• Their boss doesn't support the behavior
• The system measures things that contradict it
• Peers view it as weak or inefficient
• There's no time or space to practice

Conversely, a less naturally inclined person in a strongly supportive environment will often succeed because the system carries them.

This flips how most organizations approach training. They invest 80% in training design and 20% in environment. Research suggests it should be reversed: Fix the environment first, then design training that fits it.

Bringing it together

So no, we don't need to shift away from learning, we need to complete it. Courses and content are essential, but they're only the first stage in a much bigger process.

Behaviour change happens when:

• Knowledge becomes embodied through practice and experience (not passive listening).
• That practice is supported by an environment that enables and models the behaviour.
• The practice is reinforced through regular feedback, social recognition, and integration into daily routines.
• The behaviour is embedded in organizational culture and identity.

In Kolb's words, "Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience." But that transformation doesn't happen automatically. It requires design, support, reinforcement, and culture alignment.

The diagnostic: Is your learning initiative built for transfer?

Before your next training initiative, rate your organization on these dimensions.

Final reflection

If you lead learning or organizational development, here's the question to ask before your next initiative:

When you can answer that holistically, not just "we'll run a workshop," but "we'll change systems, we'll support practice, we'll shift culture", your learning strategy stops being an information exchange.

It becomes a system for change.