Two frameworks here: Kirkpatrick for evaluating whether a development intervention worked, and 70-20-10 for how leaders actually develop. Both are tested on order and proportion.
Kirkpatrick's four levels, in order
- Reaction: whether participants found the experience favorable, engaging, relevant and supportive.
- Learning: acquisition of intended knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence and commitment.
- Behavior: the degree to which participants perform critical behaviors on the job.
- Results: the degree to which targeted organizational outcomes occur.
Order is tested directly: reaction before learning, behavior before results. Answer sets with the right four words in the wrong order are the common miss, as are renamings — Knowledge for Learning, Application for Behavior, Return or Impact for Results, Awareness for Reaction.
The question wording maps cleanly. "Did it change how supervisors actually run their teams on the job?" is Level 3 Behavior. "Did targeted organizational outcomes occur?" is Level 4 Results.
The evaluation judgment pattern
Post-session ratings excellent, knowledge checks passing, executive says nothing changed in the business. Strong Levels 1 and 2 with no business change point to the untested Level 3 link, so measure whether participants are performing the critical behaviors on the job before judging Level 4.
Redesigning the curriculum contradicts learning data showing the content lands. Reporting reaction and learning scores answers a question the executive did not ask. Scaling extends a program whose behavioral transfer is unestablished.
70-20-10
Drawn from the Center for Creative Leadership's Lessons of Experience research:
- 70% challenging experiences and assignments
- 20% developmental relationships
- 10% coursework and training
The misses are inverting it to put formal training first, leading with relationships, or swapping the 20% and 10%. Relationships are 20; coursework is 10.
So when an entire leadership budget funds classroom courses and high-potentials report no growth, shift emphasis to challenging assignments and developmental relationships, keeping coursework smallest. More classroom hours doubles down on the smallest-yield category. Note the practical point: the two highest-yield methods require no external spend, so cost is not a reason to defer development.
Carry this: 70 experience, 20 relationships, 10 coursework.