The Science Of Transfer Effectiveness In Behaviour Change With Melanie Martinelli

It would be great to understand how you started your career within training and L&D and how it led you to focus on transfer success as a discipline.

I have a different background than I think most people in L&D. I come from a finance background, or more precisely, I started in international business management with a focus on finance and culture. In 2004 I was supposed to go to India, which I did, to do research for my planned PhD, which I never finished. But as part of that research, I started working in a company and I started buying training.

As a buyer of training, I was curious about impact. I'm spending money on training, what do I get in return? I was shocked that most vendors I spoke to weren't able to answer that question, because it just seemed such a normal question to ask as a buyer. I got happy sheets, and I got things about maybe, in the best case, whether people learned something through a pre/post test. But I, as a finance person, wasn’t interested in that. Don't get me wrong, happy people are okay, but I want more.

So then I got curious and started digging, and I came across the work of the Kirkpatricks and realised, by fluke, that Jim Kirkpatrick was in Dubai while I was in India, only three hours away. So I flew there to meet him, got trained up by him, and then started doing impact studies with him. As a side note, because I had started a PhD, I was also teaching at the university, so I had some teaching background, and I was beginning to merge these two fields together.

As I was doing Kirkpatrick work and impact studies, I realised that doing the impact study was not the hard part, but a lot of the impact studies didn't show the results people wanted. There was a transfer gap. People learned something, but we didn't see the desired impact. So then I became curious about that transfer gap, and that's when I came across the work of Dr. Ina Weinbauer-Heidel.

It was like, “Oh wow, that's exactly what's been missing.” I hate reading everything besides crime books. Unless on the third page someone is murdered, I give up. But her book What Makes Training Really Work: 12 Levers of Transfer Effectiveness was the first book that I read back to back, underlined things, marked it all up. I found it so practical. That's how I ended up in it.

Then I bought the Institute For Transfer Effectiveness business from Ina, and now I focus on supporting other professionals in designing training in such a way that it really does create that desired impact. That's the story behind the journey.

For people who are unfamiliar with the concept of transfer success as Ina lays out in her book, how do you understand what it is and why is it important for understanding the mechanisms that bridge learning and behavior change together?

Transfer is one of these topics that's been researched for hundreds of years, and there are so many factors influencing transfer. What Ina did was take a global, macro-level perspective at all these factors and ask herself a very simple question: Which of these factors actually matter for us as practitioners?

There are a lot of factors mentioned in research that are nice to know, but you and I don't gain value from them. For example, transfer research tells us that cognitive abilities are important, so people with a higher IQ transfer more. Great. Are we now going to start administering IQ tests with everyone joining a programme? Probably not. So there are many factors you can leave out because there's nothing you can do about them.

There are also factors in transfer research that only have a small impact on transfer. Even if you and I put all our effort into those things, we still won't meaningfully improve transfer. So when Ina applied that lens to the research and started removing all the factors we cannot influence or control, and all the factors with only a small impact, she was left with 12 so-called levers.

Those 12 levers are scientifically proven predictors of transfer success. They have a massive impact on transfer, and you and I can actually influence or control them through interventions.

She categorised them into three main areas. The first is the trainees themselves, including things like motivation “I want to apply what I've learned”, self-efficacy which is “I can apply this, I have the confidence”, and volition, which is the energy to apply it. Often volition gets confused with motivation, but we all know that sometimes we wake up highly motivated to hit the gym, then life happens, and by the end of the day we're exhausted and not going because there's no energy left in the tank. That's the volition piece.

There are four factors that fall into design, such as clarity of expectations, content relevance, active practice, and transfer planning. Then there are five factors that fall into the organisation, and I think that's always the biggest surprise to people. These include opportunities for application, transfer capacity, which is about systems, processes, and having time to apply learning, support from supervisors, support from peers, and whether the culture in the organisation supports transfer and cares about it.

As practitioners, you can use these levers to identify barriers for a particular project. A common misconception is that you need to treat all 12 factors equally. The best way to make transfer happen is to ask yourself, for a specific project, where are the biggest transfer barriers? Then you design for those barriers specifically.

One thing that's really been sticking with me is the supervisor support lever, because I think there's a big push at the moment around managers taking more responsibility. 

What do you believe makes it so effective, and what are some best practices for how supervisors or managers can actually pull that lever within the organisation?

According to the research, supervisor support is the most important lever. It has the biggest impact on transfer. Everything else can be great, but if your manager tells you, “Forget it. I know you just came back from training. Don't even try this out. This doesn't work,” you're probably going to feel demotivated and give up.

Getting managers on board is crucial, but it's easier said than done because managers are often stretched and have a lot going on. Also, for a long time our industry didn't really tell them they had such a crucial role to play.

I think the first thing L&D needs to do is sensitise managers and get their buy-in. They need to feel that this is worth investing in and that there's something in it for them. Otherwise, why would they give their time to it? It starts with creating awareness.

The organisations I've seen that are most successful embed transfer into first-time manager programmes. They make it part of the manager's profile that supporting the application of learning is part of their role, and they even link KPIs to it. 

Some people will say, “That sounds great on paper, but it'll never happen.” So I often talk about what I consider the minimum requirement for any manager. I call it the 5-0-5 rule. Five stands for five minutes before the training. A manager should spend five minutes with their subordinate talking about why the training is relevant, what they hope the person gets out of it, and why they're attending.

Zero stands for zero interruption during the training. Give the person actual time to attend. Don't send emails, don't expect them to respond to WhatsApps. Give them the space to be fully present.

Then the final five stands for five minutes of debrief after the session. That's really not a heavy investment, and I think no matter how busy you are as a manager, it's a good starting point. If we suddenly expect managers to play a major role overnight, that's change, and change is hard. If we set expectations too high and ask them to run massive pre-session kickoffs and post-session observations, it's overwhelming. So let's start, in true transfer spirit, with baby steps.

Managers can hear “5-0-5” and think, “Okay, I can do that.” Then maybe over time it becomes 15-0-15. Research shows that even 15 minutes before and after has a massive impact. It doesn't have to be huge, but it does have to be intentional and become the standard.

Looking more at the deeper impact side, I really like the stories and emotion that come from qualitative feedback. 

How do you think the best feedback can be gathered from learners to tell meaningful qualitative stories, and how should those stories show up to prove impact?

I'm absolutely with you. At the end of the day, there's nothing better than qualitative feedback. When we do surveys there's always a certain bias, even though research tells us self-rating is much better than we once thought when compared with ratings from others. But those early stories are powerful.

One person I recommend for his expertise in this area is Carl Hodler from StoryTagger. He has built technology around reflective storytelling to help prove impact. As people come out of a programme, they're sent prompts at certain intervals to reflect on how they've started using the learning and what impact they're observing. I think that's especially powerful for reflective skills like diversity, inclusion, or leadership, where outcomes aren't always easily measurable.

Another tool I like to use is called the Transfer News. Let's say you have 10 participants. The tool runs for 10 weeks, and every week one participant is responsible for sending updates to the rest of the cohort about how they've started implementing their learning.

This creates powerful feedback data. It highlights early successes and early behavioural changes, which can later serve as evidence when you begin to see KPIs shifting two or three months down the line.

That's always the hardest part. Evaluating KPIs isn't difficult because organisations already have them. The hard part is linking the KPI to the training. You can only really do that through early monitoring immediately after the session, where you start gathering stories and evidence that people are applying what they've learned and observing change. That makes the chain of evidence much more comprehensive and understandable.

Given that transfer principles have been around for hundreds of years, it feels like people are now starting to jump on the bandwagon, perhaps because of pressure to prove impact and AI. Do you feel there are any other reasons for this?

You are right. The topic of transfer has been around for a long time, but when I first started talking about it people would almost laugh and say, “This is nice, Melanie, but nobody's going to ask us for it.” And for a long time that was true.

Even today there are companies that seem to be swimming in money and don't care about impact. Training is treated more like an employee benefit. But over the last few years, because of economic pressure, there's been much more pressure on L&D to prove its value.

Back in 2008 we had the financial crisis, but this time it's different because now we also have the pressure of AI. AI is threatening to replace a lot of the traditional work L&D has done around content creation, PowerPoint decks, role plays, and similar tasks.

Those two forces together are amplifying the need to prove impact. If you want to prove impact, measuring it isn't the hard part. Creating it is the hard part, and for that you need to design with transfer in mind.

I think not caring about transfer is almost a luxury. It's a sign of prosperity where you can afford waste. I've worked around the globe, and there are industries and markets where transfer was already a priority 15 years ago because they had limited budgets. When resources are limited, you have to think carefully about whether you're spending money in the best possible way.

I've done a lot of work with NGOs and they have to prove to donors that the funding they received created the desired impact. Otherwise, they won't get funding again.

I was recently in Nigeria and was very impressed by how advanced they were in this area. People kept telling me, “We have such limited resources, we need to make sure what we do works.” I think that's what's happening now in many parts of the world. Resources are tighter, so people are becoming more conscious about how and where they spend.

Another trend I'm seeing is that since the pandemic we've had more opportunities to learn in different ways than ever before, which can create learning fatigue. 

What are your thoughts on that, and how can we combat it?

I'm going to say something provocative. I genuinely think a lot of it is about less learning, but better learning.

We're constantly chasing shiny tools and shiny technologies. But at the end of the day, one way to combat learning fatigue is to really ask ourselves what employees actually need. Even though more people are talking about moving away from completion rates and number of courses, I still feel those metrics dominate. Somehow we think we need to offer everything. But how much can people realistically take in?

If you truly want someone to apply what they've learned, one solution is less. Let them attend the one mission-critical course they genuinely need, and then help them actually implement it. Change takes time and patience.

Instead of sending people to endless courses where they're just collecting certificates, we should focus on meaningful application.

What I do love about technology is that it allows us to personalise things more, give people more options, and make support more scalable through nudges and reminders. In the end, what's important for transfer is that people have opportunities to use what they've learned.

I'm not advocating for one particular format. You can achieve transfer through face-to-face learning, virtual classrooms, digital learning, microlearning. All of these are simply vehicles for transporting learning.

But if we focus only on learning delivery, we're ignoring the huge amount of work that needs to happen before and after to ensure the learning actually gets applied. I hope the conversation in the industry shifts away from “How do we improve learning?” toward “How do we support people in making use of that learning?”

As an add-on to that, who should be asking those questions within organisations? Should it still be L&D, or should it come from the top down as well?

I think it's a collaboration. One reason transfer is still such a stepchild in the L&D industry is because nobody fully owns it. When you look at the levers, you can always blame someone else. You can blame participants for not being motivated, designers for poor design, or organisations for not creating the right environment. There isn't one clearly responsible person.

I think there's a real opportunity for L&D to become the conductor of the orchestra and the function that holds it all together, creates awareness among stakeholders, and proactively leads those conversations.

A lot of people think transfer starts after a programme. They run the learning intervention and then say, “Okay, now let's make transfer happen with follow-up sessions and nudges.” But transfer actually starts much earlier. It begins with validating whether there is even a training need in the first place.

Do people have opportunities to use what they learn? What are the transfer goals? Many businesses still only have learning goals, but knowing something and doing something are not the same.

L&D has a real opportunity to initiate these conversations. For example, we know learners can be highly motivated and still fail to apply learning because life catches up with them. That's where L&D can step in with reminders and nudges.

The same is true for managers. I've had managers say, “I want to support my people, but I don't know how.” Again, there's an opportunity for us to help them with observation forms or simple support tools.

For one of my programmes, I record one-minute video messages that go out to managers one month, two months, and three months after a programme. Each video gives one simple action they can take to support learners. Managers love it because they want to help, but figuring out what to do and when takes mental energy. 

In terms of what you're excited about for the future, whether it's trends or tools for improving L&D and transfer as a whole, what stands out to you?

I'm excited that the topic is finally gaining traction. At almost every conference I've attended over the past couple of years, people are talking about transfer and effectiveness. Sometimes that's a little scary, because you see words like “transformative” or “effective” everywhere, but when you dig deeper it's often still superficial.

I'll give you a simple example. People often mix up active learning with active practice. They'll say, “Yeah, we use a lot of engagement techniques,” and I'm like, “No, that's active learning.” The real question is whether people are practicing what they need to do back on the job during the session itself. Often the answer is no.

But overall, I'm genuinely excited that the topic is being discussed more seriously. I'm also excited about how technology is helping us scale a lot of this work, because one of the biggest barriers to impactful evaluation and transfer has always been a lack of resources, systems, and processes.

In the early days, when I did impact studies, I was literally crunching numbers in Excel. Now we have AI tools that can analyse qualitative data, identify patterns, and surface trends incredibly quickly. That frees up so much time for me to actually take action on the insights instead of getting buried in administration.

When I have massive data sets now, I can use AI to analyse them and create dashboards far faster than before. If used correctly, data is power because it gives us actionable intelligence. It tells us what to focus on, what needs monitoring, and where we need to adjust. Previously, all of that was extremely labor intensive, and that's what held a lot of people back.

The same applies to transfer scalability. Things like nudging, reminders, and personalisation used to be difficult because the technology simply wasn't there. Now I use tools like Noli from Sweden. At the end of a session I can see everyone's transfer plan, follow up with them automatically, and monitor how they're progressing over time.

If someone isn't progressing, the system flags it for me. I can then look into why, understand what support they might need, and intervene more effectively. It makes it much easier to give people the support they actually need, and that's something I'm very excited about.

How do you personally keep learning yourself? Are there any particular frameworks, modalities, or mechanisms that you rely on?

I think there are two big things for me. First, and this is something I would recommend to anyone in L&D, get out of the L&D bubble.

Because I come from a non-L&D background, I still have a lot of connections in other industries and fields. I have friends and colleagues in finance, hardcore sales, negotiation, and through my university work I spend time with MBA students from all kinds of professional backgrounds.

I find that important because it helps me understand what keeps leaders awake at night. That gives me insight into what the priorities inside organisations are. It helps me understand which L&D initiatives will genuinely be seen as valuable and what language I need to use when presenting ideas to senior stakeholders.

A CFO or senior leader usually isn't interested in satisfaction scores. They care about attrition rates, hiring costs, productivity, and business performance. Spending time outside my own professional bubble helps me better understand the pressures and realities my stakeholders are dealing with.

The second thing is that I learn a lot through people and experimentation. I attend a lot of industry events and spend a lot of time talking with others. I'm honest when I say I don't take many formal courses anymore. I learn much more through trial and error, conversations, testing ideas, and seeing what works in practice.

A lot of networking, community events, and informal conversations are still valuable. I think this is one area AI still can't fully replace. Experience sharing matters because there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution in the world we operate in. We're not operating machines. We're trying to change human behaviour, and human beings are highly complex.