C33 alive
Organised workplace training for adults raises what they learn and how they behave on the job by about half a standard deviation or more on average, compared with untrained comparison groups.
Bounds: Formal training programmes in organisations, judged by learning tests and on-the-job behaviour; not reactions or company results alone. Evidence on file: Lacerenza, Reyes, Marlow, Joseph & Salas 2017 (Journal of Applied Psychology, DOI 10.1037/apl0000241; abstract only): leadership training improved learning (δ = .73) and transfer to the job (δ = .82); stronger with practice, feedback and spaced face-to-face sessions. Arthur, Bennett, Edens & Bell 2003 (Journal of Applied Psychology, DOI 10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.234; full text read 2026-11-07): sample-weighted d = 0.63 for learning (k = 234, N = 15,014) and 0.62 for behavioural criteria (k = 122, N = 15,627); supports the claim's size (not an attack). Weak spots of this meta-analysis (corrected 2026-11-11, from "many evaluations are pre-post or self-report"): single-group before-and-after designs were excluded (p. 237) and self-reported reactions are a separate criterion (k = 15), but whether studies were randomised was never coded, there is no publication-bias check, nearly all effects come from journal articles of 1960–2000, and the intervals printed as "95% CI" (learning −0.53 to 1.79; behaviour 0.05 to 1.19) show how widely effects spread across studies, not how precise the averages are (Table 1, p. 239). Where the same 17 studies (N = 839) measured both, job behaviour came out smaller than learning (d = 0.44 vs 0.66). Without a study-quality filter it cannot test the kill line either way.
Attack record: No attacks yet · Evidence links: 4 linked sources (2 supports, 2 limits)