Challenging what ‘good’ really means
In learning and development, the word good is used often but defined rarely. Yet if we are to make lasting impact, we must regularly redefine what good looks like in L&D. It can mean full classrooms, high completion rates, or a positive survey at the end of a programme. The Learning at Work Report by CIPD notes that these measures remain among the most common indicators of learning success, even though they focus on activity rather than impact. These metrics are easy to count and even easier to celebrate. Yet over time, they can distort how teams think about value. A learning function can look busy, productive, and well organised, while still struggling to show whether its work made any real difference.
Defining good by volume or popularity feels safe, but it limits growth. It tells teams how much they delivered, not how much changed.
The Problem – Measuring what is easy, not what matters
Many learning teams still rely on surface level indicators of success. Attendance, satisfaction, and completion rates are tracked and reported because they are simple to collect and present. Yet these figures often tell a partial story. As noted by Harvard Business Review, many organisations still treat learning as an event to be completed rather than a system to be improved, focusing on participation over impact to the business.
When teams focus on what is easy to measure, the purpose of learning becomes blurred. They may succeed in demonstrating activity but struggle to demonstrate impact. Over time, this habit shapes expectations at every level. Leaders begin to equate high participation with effectiveness, and teams feel compelled to deliver visible results rather than meaningful outcomes.
The Iris Framework challenges this by positioning purpose and alignment at the centre of measurement. It encourages learning teams to define success in terms of change and clarity, not just participation.
The Hidden Risk – When ‘good’ becomes a performance trap
When success is defined by visibility, learning teams begin to optimise for approval rather than improvement. The metrics look good, but the outcomes stay the same. Over time, this creates a performance trap in which teams feel pressured to deliver more, faster, and louder, even when the real need is reflection and recalibration.
This pattern is not unique to learning. Research from MIT Sloan Management Review highlights that when organisations reward activity over adaptability, agility begins to erode.The same dynamic plays out in learning functions that prioritise volume over value. To change this pattern, teams must redefine what good looks like in L&D, shifting their focus from visible activity to lasting organisational impact.
Why We Must Redefine What ‘Good’ Looks Like in L&D
Within the Iris Framework, this imbalance shows up when measures of success are detached from purpose. Teams that chase quick wins risk losing the strategic alignment that gives their work meaning. Redefining good starts by recognising that visibility does not equal value.
Redefine What ‘Good’ Looks Like in L&D – From activity to alignment
Redefining good in learning and development starts with alignment. Instead of asking how much has been delivered, teams must ask whether learning made a measurable difference to performance or decision making. As highlighted by McKinsey, organisations that link learning outcomes to business priorities see stronger performance and more sustained capability growth.
For decades, the Kirkpatrick model has shaped how learning is evaluated. Its four levels remain a helpful foundation, but the sequence often runs backwards in practice. Teams start by collecting feedback and satisfaction data, then attempt to work their way up toward evidence of impact. By the time they reach that point, the connection between learning and results has often faded.
What Redefining ‘Good’ Means for Learning Teams
In the Iris Framework, good is defined by connection. Teams tie every decision, from analysis and design to delivery and evaluation, back to a shared purpose. When purpose is clear, evidence becomes easier to interpret and effort feels more coherent. It also gives teams permission to focus their energy on the work that creates real change, rather than the activity that looks impressive.
A supporting toolkit will soon be available to help learning teams explore their own measures of success. It will provide structured prompts and templates that turn the principle of alignment into practical reflection and shared ownership of outcomes.
Closing Reflection – Redefine What ‘Good’ Looks Like in Learning and Development
When learning teams start to redefine good, their focus shifts from volume to value. Conversations with leaders move beyond attendance and satisfaction toward capability, confidence, and results. Evaluation becomes part of the design, not an afterthought.
What good looks like now is not more data but better insight. It is a shared understanding between learning teams and the organisation of what change they are working to create. It is clarity about purpose, evidence, and connection.
Redefining good starts by recognising that visibility does not equal value. This theme builds on ideas explored in When Learning Teams Lose Their Shape, which examines what happens when structure and clarity drift away from purpose
An in-depth, solution-focused analysis of these ideas can be found in The Iris Framework: 40 Checkpoints to Drive Lasting Change in Organisational Learning. It provides a practical way for learning teams to explore alignment, evidence, and improvement in detail, turning reflection into measurable progress.
When learning teams start to redefine what good looks like in L&D, their focus shifts from volume to value. Conversations with leaders move beyond attendance and satisfaction toward capability, confidence, and results.
Clarity, not volume, is what makes learning visible.
Leave a Reply