State of Facilitation
2026

One of the clearest themes emerging from the data is that the learning and development community is deeply committed to ‘impact’. Yet the conversations within the field reveal that the word impact is doing a lot of heavy lifting. As Melanie notes, practitioners often “focus mainly on satisfaction,” even though “there is no correlation between satisfaction and application (Alliger & Janak, 1989).” The data reinforces this longstanding tension: we are using one word to describe several fundamentally different outcomes.

From our perspective, ‘impact’ is currently a shorthand for three distinct ideas:

1. Facilitator performance and in-room engagement,
2. Participant experience (relevance, confidence, perceived value), and
3. Business or organizational outcomes (behavior change and measurable results).

Each of these is important. Each deserves to be understood. But they are not interchangeable. And when they blur, it becomes difficult for organizations to design effective evaluation strategies. As Chris puts it, “We need to define what we’re talking about when we say ‘impact’, because much of the existing data focuses on how successfully the facilitator engages participants in the room versus the change that’s created for the organization.”

Impact Must Be Defined Upfront

One shared observation is that many challenges highlighted in the report stem from evaluation beginning too late. Teams often measure only what is easy—typically so-called Level 1 reactions—rather than what is meaningful. Melanie sums up the risk: “Meaningful evaluation is only possible when you know where you are going. If you don’t know where you are headed, how can you measure if you actually reached your desired destination?” If the desired business outcomes are not defined during contracting, practitioners are left trying to isolate impact retroactively: a task that is both unreliable and unnecessarily difficult.

Impact measurement becomes dramatically more feasible when expectations are explicit. Clarifying the Return On Expectations (ROE) gives both the facilitator and the client a shared direction, enabling more targeted evaluation and more actionable insights. Some questions that may help in clarifying the desired ROE:

How did the idea of the course / workshop come about?

Which strategically relevant topics and numbers could/should the training/workshop/session influence positively/make a positive contribution to?

Imagine the program achieves its goals. How are participants acting differently afterwards? How do you imagine that will impact the business?

A Multi-Stage, Multi-Method Approach

The report’s findings show that most respondents’ evaluation happens immediately after a session. While these early data points matter — relevance, confidence, and intent-to-apply are predictive indicators — they do not yet reflect behavior change. “All that I can say after a few days,” Melanie explains, “is whether I liked it and whether I have a plan to apply, but there’s no proof yet.” Actual impact unfolds across time.

A stronger approach blends multiple sources, multiple methods, and multiple time points. Qualitative stories can complement quantitative measures; observation and follow-ups can validate early indicators; manager input can contextualize progress and barriers. As Chris emphasizes, evaluation data should serve three purposes: “Yes, validate impact — but also use it to course correct, and use it to inform what comes next.”

This ongoing rhythm shifts evaluation from a one-time audit to a continuous feedback system capable of supporting real change.

Recommendations for Strengthening Evaluation and Impact

Based on our combined experience and what the report surfaces, we offer several practical recommendations for practitioners seeking to deepen their impact evaluation:

1. Start with the end in mind. Define intended outcomes at the contracting stage. Chris’s analogy captures it well: “My Uber driver cannot know where to take me if I don’t plug in the destination.”
2. Fall in love with the problem, not the solution. Melanie first heard this phrase from a colleague. It resonates because solution-first thinking often leads to misaligned interventions.
3. Ask the essential question. Before designing or delivering anything, ask: “Are you paying me to deliver content, or are you paying me to drive change?” The answer determines everything that follows.
4. Use session-level evaluation to capture leading indicators. Focus on what predicts downstream behavior change: relevance, confidence, readiness and commitment to specific application — not just satisfaction.
5. Identify barriers early. Post-program check-ins should reveal what might support or hinder application. These insights are often the most actionable for clients.
6. Track behavior change (self reported and observed) over time. Thirty-, sixty-, and ninety-day data provide the clearest picture of where learning is translating into change.
7. Blend qualitative and quantitative data. Stories, reflections, and examples can reveal nuance that numbers alone cannot. As Melanie observes, “We gotta move beyond just only surveys.”
8. Use tools that match the type of impact being measured. Engagement tools are valuable — but they are not impact tools. Different outcomes require different measurement approaches.

A Shared Opportunity

The field’s commitment to impact is clear. What the data highlights — and what our experience reinforces — is the need for clearer definitions, earlier alignment, and more continuous evaluation rhythms. None of this replaces existing practice; rather, it enhances it. By distinguishing between types of impact and measuring what matters at the moments that matter, practitioners can demonstrate value more confidently and create stronger outcomes for learners and organizations alike.