Training isn’t failing because of poor content – it’s failing because of the wrong intent
That’s the warning from Sharon Macquarie, head of global training at Avetta, who says too many organisations still design learning to “tick the compliance box” rather than build genuine capability in their workforce.
“When compliance becomes the goal, learning becomes transactional, and its impact quickly erodes,” she said. “If workers cannot demonstrate capability in real conditions, training has failed, regardless of completion rates.”
For HR leaders under pressure to prove ROI on learning and development, that shift – from completion to capability – is becoming business-critical.
From tick-box to real-world performance
Macquarie believes the fundamental question every HR and training leader should be asking is simple: can workers actually do the job safely and effectively after they’ve been trained?
“Training only delivers value when it is paired with clear expectations of competence,” she explained. “That means finding methods to confirm that training has translated into safe, effective performance.”
Rather than celebrating high completion rates or impressive LMS dashboards, organisations should focus on whether people can demonstrate the required skills in the field, particularly in high-risk roles and environments.
That’s where relevance becomes non‑negotiable.
“Training that reflects real operational risk, including examples of actual workplace incidents from within the organisation, reinforces why learning exists in the first place,” Macquarie said.
“When people recognise their own environment in the training, it stops being theoretical and starts influencing behaviour.”
For HR, that means partnering more closely with operations, safety and line leaders to ensure training content reflects how work is actually done – with all its constraints, shortcuts and real-world pressures – rather than an idealised process description.
Engagement: less ‘course’, more ‘capability check’
Improving engagement in training is less about gamification and more about clear relevance and practical application, Macquarie said.
“Engagement improves when training is relevant, practical, and clearly linked to how work is actually done, not how we imagined it would be done."
One of the most effective levers, she argues, is pairing learning with structured, on‑the‑job competency assessments. These should validate that employees can apply skills under varying real‑world conditions, especially where safety and operational risk are high.
Delivery mode also matters.
“Foundational safety training is most effective when it includes an in‑person, instructor‑led component that allows for discussion, challenge, and scenario-based learning and demonstration,” she said.
Once expectations and standards are clearly established through that interactive foundation, digital learning becomes a powerful enabler – supporting consistency, accessibility and scale across sites and geographies.
On top of this, leading organisations know when to call in outside help.
“Partnering with specialists to design competency frameworks or even manage training programs enables consistency, reduces internal burden, and improves cost‑effectiveness across complex or distributed workforces,” said Macquarie.
For HR leaders stretched across multiple priorities, those partnerships can be the difference between a well‑intentioned training calendar and a genuinely robust capability strategy.
Rethinking training policy: define ‘what good looks like’
Policies often focus on what training is required – which modules, which frequencies, which roles. Macquarie argues that’s no longer enough.
“Training policy must define more than what training is required, it must define what good looks like,” she said. “That includes how competence is verified, how often it is reassessed, and how learning effectiveness is demonstrated in the field.”
Inconsistent training standards, assessment methods and record‑keeping, she warns, remain a major source of organisational risk. As workforces become more blended – with employees, contractors and subcontractors working side by side – that inconsistency can become a critical weak point.
“Forward‑looking organisations are moving toward greater standardisation and collaboration, both internally and across industries, to establish clearer benchmarks and expectations,” Macquarie explained. “Training policy should consider how expectations for worker competency on a site might be managed for both employees and contractors.”
Visibility over competency data is equally important. Robust systems that capture and manage this data can give HR and operations leaders a real‑time view of workforce capability – who is competent to do what, where gaps exist, and how that impacts work allocation.
“Training should be treated as a strategic investment in operational readiness, not a discretionary cost, because the consequences of capability gaps are rarely theoretical,” she added.
For HR, that reframes training policy from a compliance document into a core instrument of risk management and workforce planning.
The skills that matter most in 2026
Looking ahead, Macquarie believes the nature of workplace learning in 2026 is shifting decisively away from knowledge transfer alone.
As automation, AI and data-driven tools become embedded in day-to-day work, digital capability is fast becoming a baseline requirement across roles – not just for specialised IT or analytics teams.
A new digital tool can eliminate one type of risk while introducing another; employees must be trained to recognise and manage those shifts.
At the same time, the traditional divide between technical and “soft” skills is collapsing.
“The line between technical and behavioural skills has effectively disappeared,” she said. “Communication, accountability, and leadership at every level are now recognised as critical enablers of safety and performance.”
In practice, that means training programs that develop not just task proficiency but also the behaviours that underpin a strong safety and performance culture: speaking up about risk, challenging unsafe decisions, owning outcomes, and leading by example, regardless of job title.
“Organisations that invest in these capabilities are not just training workers but building resilient, future‑ready workforces,” Macquarie said.
What this means for HR leaders
For HR leaders, Macquarie’s message is clear: the opportunity – and responsibility – lies in repositioning training as a core driver of operational performance, safety and resilience.
That requires:
- Setting clear, observable standards of competence for key roles
- Ensuring training content is grounded in real operational risk and real incidents
- Embedding structured competency assessments into how work is organised and supervised
- Standardising training and assessment expectations for both employees and contractors
- Building systems that provide real‑time visibility into workforce capability
- Prioritising judgement, risk awareness, digital literacy and behavioural skills alongside technical proficiency
