---
id: "prereq-traditional-ld-metrics"
type: "prereq"
source_timestamps: ["¶4", "§ Emotional Activation"]
tags: ["hr", "metrics"]
related: ["concept-capability-mirage", "contrarian-training-vs-capability"]
reason: "Required to grasp the contrast between traditional completion metrics and XR's capability/confidence metrics."
sources: ["reskilling"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-reskilling"
originDay: 10
articleStem: "hbr-edu-33-new-tools-workforce-training"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2025/12/the-new-tools-that-can-improve-workforce-training"
sourceTitle: "The New Tools That Can Improve Workforce Training"
---
# Familiarity with L&D Metrics

## Prerequisite: Familiarity with L&D Metrics

The author assumes familiarity with how organizations **traditionally measure training success** — conducting sessions, issuing certificates, tracking completion rates — in order to critique these methods as a *mirage*.

**Why it's required:** the whole argument turns on the contrast between **completion metrics** (attendance, certificates) and **capability/confidence metrics** (scenario completion, applied confidence). Grounding: Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Evaluation (reaction → learning → behavior → results) formalizes exactly this gap. See [[concept-capability-mirage]] and [[contrarian-training-vs-capability]].