You commission a training programme. It gets delivered. Participants fill in the feedback form and say they found it useful. Then Monday arrives, and nothing changes.

This is not a rare failure. It is the default outcome when a programme is designed around content delivery rather than behaviour change. And there is a specific, well-researched reason it happens: the conditions that make learning transfer to the job were never put in place.

The 12 levers of transfer framework, developed by Broad and Newstrom and later refined by researchers including Emma Weber, gives you a clear map of what those conditions are. This article explains them in plain language, and shows you how to use them to evaluate the programmes you already have and design better ones in the future.

What transfer actually means

Learning transfer is what happens, or does not happen, after the training is over. It is the degree to which someone applies what they learned in a session to their actual work, over time, in real situations.

Without transfer, training produces knowledge that exists in a room for a few hours and then evaporates. With transfer, training changes how someone handles a difficult conversation, writes a prompt, manages a project, or gives feedback. Those are very different outcomes, and the gap between them is almost entirely explained by whether the conditions for transfer were designed for.

Transfer does not happen automatically. It has to be engineered. The 12 levers are the engineering checklist.

This connects directly to a pattern explored in another article on this site about where L&D budgets go wrong. Most organisations spend almost entirely on formal learning events, which account for only 10% of how people actually develop. The 12 levers are what you need to activate the other 90%. Read: Why 90% of your L&D budget is going on the wrong 10%.

The 12 levers, explained

Each lever is a condition that either supports or undermines the transfer of learning to the job. Some are in the control of the learner. Most are in the control of the organisation. All of them can be designed for.

Lever 01
Learner readiness
Does the learner understand why the training matters to them personally? Are they motivated to change, or just required to attend? Readiness has to be created before the session, not assumed.
Lever 02
Motivation to transfer
Does the learner believe that applying what they learned will make a real difference? Motivation to transfer is distinct from motivation to attend, and it needs to be addressed explicitly during design.
Lever 03
Positive personal outcomes
What does the learner gain by changing their behaviour? Recognition, career progress, less frustration in a difficult situation? If the personal benefit is not clear, there is little reason to change.
Lever 04
Negative personal outcomes
What happens if the learner does not apply what they learned? If the answer is nothing, that is a problem. There need to be real consequences, not necessarily punitive, for reverting to old habits.
Lever 05
Personal capacity for transfer
Does the learner have the time, energy, and cognitive space to practise new behaviours? If they return from training to an overloaded inbox and no structured opportunity to apply what they learned, transfer will not happen regardless of how good the session was.
Lever 06
Peer support
Do the learner's colleagues support the new behaviour, or do they undermine it? A team that rolls its eyes at someone trying to give feedback differently will undo months of training in a single meeting.
Lever 07
Manager support
This is consistently one of the most powerful levers. Does the learner's manager reinforce what was learned, create opportunities to practise, and model the new behaviour themselves? Manager support does not happen by accident. It has to be designed and briefed.
Lever 08
Opportunity to use
Does the learner have real situations in which to apply new skills in the weeks after training? If a manager learns how to have difficult performance conversations but has no performance conversations scheduled for three months, the learning will fade before it is ever applied.
Lever 09
Personal outcomes for managers
Are managers recognised and rewarded for supporting their team's development? If supporting learning is seen as extra work with no upside, most managers will deprioritise it.
Lever 10
Coaching and feedback
Does the learner receive specific, timely feedback on how they are applying new skills? Coaching does not require a formal coaching relationship. A five-minute conversation after a difficult meeting can be enough, if it is focused and honest.
Lever 11
Resistance to change
Is the organisational culture actively or passively resisting the change that the training is trying to drive? Some programmes fail not because of anything in the programme itself, but because the wider environment sends a different message about what is actually expected.
Lever 12
Performance self-efficacy
Does the learner believe they are capable of applying the new behaviour successfully? Low confidence is one of the most underestimated barriers to transfer. If someone leaves a session thinking they understood it but could not actually do it, the session has not done its job.

Why most programmes fail this checklist

If you scan that list honestly against a typical training programme, you will find that most programmes actively address one or two levers, passively hope for a few more, and completely ignore the rest.

Lever 7, manager support, is perhaps the most telling example. Research consistently identifies it as one of the strongest predictors of whether learning transfers. And yet the vast majority of programmes are delivered to participants with no briefing, involvement, or follow-up whatsoever for their managers. The manager finds out their team member went on a training course when they see the calendar invite. That is not neutral: it is an active signal that the organisation does not expect anything to change.

Lever 8, opportunity to use, is another common failure. A programme teaches a skill, but nobody asks whether learners will actually encounter situations to practise it in the weeks that follow. If the answer is no, the programme needs to either create those situations or rethink its timing entirely.

Most of these levers are not about the training content at all. They are about what happens before the session and what happens in the weeks after it. That is where most L&D design effort is missing.

How to use this as a diagnostic

The most useful thing you can do with this framework right now is pick one programme you suspect is not delivering results and score it honestly against each lever. For each one, ask: is this lever activated in our current design? And if not, what would it take to activate it?

You do not need to fix all twelve at once. Fixing two or three of the most critical levers, manager support, opportunity to use, and learner readiness, will produce a measurable difference in most cases. The rest can be addressed over time.

What you are looking for is the pattern. If a programme scores poorly on almost all twelve levers, the issue is not the content. The issue is that it was designed as a content delivery exercise rather than a behaviour change programme. Redesigning it is not a small edit: it requires going back to the design brief.

How to use this when commissioning new programmes

If you are briefing an external provider, or working with an internal team to design something new, the 12 levers give you a straightforward set of questions to ask before a single slide is built:

  • How will we prepare learners before the session so they arrive ready to engage?
  • What structured opportunities will learners have to practise in the weeks after?
  • What will managers be asked to do, and how will they be briefed and supported?
  • How will we give learners feedback on their application, not just on the session itself?
  • What does success look like three months after the programme ends, and how will we measure it?

A provider who cannot answer these questions is designing a course, not a learning programme. That distinction matters. Courses transfer knowledge. Learning programmes, when designed well, change behaviour.

A note on measurement

The 12 levers connect directly to the Kirkpatrick New World Model, which evaluates training at four levels: learner reaction, knowledge acquisition, behaviour change, and business results. Most organisations measure only the first level, the post-training feedback form, and treat a score of 4.2 out of 5 as evidence that the programme worked.

It is not. It is evidence that people enjoyed the session. Those are different things. Behaviour change, lever after lever, is what matters. And you can only measure behaviour change if you have defined, before the programme began, what behaviour you expected to change and how you would know.

The 12 levers are not just a design tool. They are a measurement framework. Each lever that was activated is a transfer mechanism you can track. Each one that was not activated is a known risk of failure that could have been designed away.

Where to start

You do not need to redesign everything. Pick one programme that matters: one that has real business stakes, real learners who need to do something differently, and real consequences if nothing changes. Run it through the 12 levers. See what is missing. That gap is your design brief.

If you would like a second opinion on that assessment, that is exactly what the free half-day audit is for. We look at your current programmes against frameworks like this one, identify where transfer is being left to chance, and come back with clear recommendations. No proposal until you have seen the findings.

Want to audit your current programmes against the 12 levers?

The free half-day audit is a structured review of your L&D setup against evidence-based frameworks. Honest findings. No obligation to go further.

Book your free audit →