Your Chief Virtual Learning Architect

Learning to Performance

Read More
Custom Design & Delivery

Read More
Predictive Evaluation

Read More
Enterprise Learning Strategy

Read More

› ‹

1
2
3
4

Dave Basarab Consulting has elevated the training experience, offering an end-to-end comprehensive approach that includes training strategy, instructional design, development, delivery , post program training transfer, and evaluation (via the unique Predictive Evaluation methodology). Virtual Chief Architect Dave Basarab has combined all of these individual training elements with his user-friendly, comprehensive Learning to Performance approach, which significantly increases companies' training ROI.

Why we are different

Innovation: Our primary focus is creating learning programs using a Learning to Performance approach.
Expertise: Dave offers the depth and breadth of his experience, including working internally at prestigious companies (Motorola, Ingersoll Rand and Pitney Bowes) as well as his knowledge and expertise as a highly-respected, sought-after consultant.
Partnership: Basarab collaborates with companies, serving as their own Chief Learning Officer whenever they need to plan, strategize, or implement training initiatives.

Training Services

Enterprise Learning Strategy

Enterprise Learning Strategy

At Dave Basarab Consulting, we're experts in creating Enterprise Learning Plans. We work with you to develop your company's learning strategy and direction.

Custom Design, Development, & Delivery

Custom Design, Development, & Delivery

Custom training is an effective way of developing the capability required to execute your strategy. We are a custom design house that creates programs specific to your business.

Learning Burst Development

Learning Burst Development

We can create and deliver your courses via our unique Learning Burst Method - keeping your employees at their jobs while receiving world-class training.

Predictive Evaluation

Predictive Evaluation

We predict the ROI for your courses and establish success gates. We then evaluate the course against the success gates to show value realized and continually improve results.

Leadership Development

Leadership Development

Turn-key virtual custom leadership development program that combines world-class leadership speakers/educators with post-event personalized coaching to provide you with a cadre of highly skilled leaders.

Predictive Evaluation

Evaluating leadership training beyond Level 1 of the Kirkpatrick Model

Many L&D teams across Australia still lean on the post-session smile sheet as their main proof of impact. That captures reaction, the easiest layer, and leaves harder questions unanswered. Did participants actually learn new leadership behaviours? Are they applying them on the floor in a Perth mine site or a Brisbane contact centre?

Australian workplaces have quirks that shape how leadership training lands. Hierarchies can be flatter in tech firms around Sydney and Melbourne, sharper in resources or banking. Mateship, the fair go, and tall poppy syndrome all nudge how candidly people give feedback. Time zones from Broome to Hobart push programs toward blended formats.

Climbing from Level 1 to Levels 2, 3 and 4 of the Kirkpatrick Model is where credibility lives. Most programs stall here because the data is messier and the conversations with senior leaders are tougher. The sections below outline an Australian-tested rhythm for moving past reaction toward proof of behaviour change and business result.

Why Level 1 surveys are a starting point, not a finish line

A Level 1 reaction survey tells you whether the facilitator was engaging and the catering landed well. For an L&D team inside an ASX-listed company, that is not enough. Reaction correlates weakly with learning and almost not at all with behaviour change back on the job.

What Level 1 does well is flag delivery problems fast. If a cohort in Adelaide rates the venue poorly or finds the content repetitive, you can adjust the next iteration. Treat the smile sheet as a diagnostic, not as proof that leadership capability has shifted.

A common trap is letting Level 1 become the loudest voice in the post-program report. Once that happens, the conversation about behaviour and ROI gets crowded out. Reserve reaction data for course-correction, and run a separate evaluation stream that targets the higher levels.

Measuring learning at Level 2 with practical evidence

Level 2 asks what participants actually know or can do after the program. For leadership training, that is rarely a multiple-choice test. It is closer to a structured simulation, case discussion, or coached role play.

In Australian corporate settings, a useful pattern is pre and post capability assessment, scored against a behavioural rubric rather than self-perception. Pair that with manager observation in coaching, and you have triangulated evidence that learning has shifted. Avoid asking the participant alone, since self-rating inflates in cultures where modesty is prized.

Capturing this evidence requires a blend of formats, since participants in regional roles often cannot attend every live session. self-study with live practice keeps capability-building continuous between workshops, widening the Level 2 measurement window.

Kirkpatrick Level	What It Measures	Typical Method	Australian Reality
Level 1 - Reaction	Satisfaction with the experience	Post-session survey	Useful for course tuning, weak on its own
Level 2 - Learning	Knowledge and skill gained	Rubric-scored simulation, pre and post	Needs blended delivery for regional cohorts
Level 3 - Behaviour	On-the-job application	Manager observation, 30-60-90 review	Cultural candour shapes feedback quality
Level 4 - Results	Business outcome	Linked KPI, control group	Finance wants clear, attributable movement

Tracking behaviour change at Level 3 in real work settings

Behaviour is where most leadership programs leak value. The classroom feels electric, then everyone heads back to their desks and old habits reassert themselves within a fortnight. Level 3 evaluation forces a structured check on what is changing in the flow of work.

The Australian way to do this is through line-manager accountability. Ask the direct manager, not the participant, what they have observed at the 30, 60 and 90-day marks. Use specific behavioural anchors, such as running better one-on-ones or challenging decisions openly in leadership forums. Vague answers do not survive a meeting with the COO.

Pair manager observation with a short learner self-reflection. The two rarely match, and the gap itself is informative. In a culture that values a fair go, you may need to coach managers to be specific rather than generous. Hard yakka on the evaluation side pays back here.

Linking to business results at Level 4 the Australian way

Level 4 connects learning to business outcomes such as retention of high-potentials, engagement scores, customer NPS, safety incidents, or sales conversion. The trick is to pick one or two leading indicators that move before the lagging financial number does.

For a leadership cohort in a Sydney-based professional services business, that might be the engagement score of the team led by each participant. For a resources company with sites in the Pilbara, safety leadership indicators and unplanned absence can be tracked monthly. A pre-launch ROI forecast gives finance a credible number to work with and frames the Level 4 review that follows.

Document assumptions openly. Which behaviour change drives which metric, by how much, and over what window? Without that logic chain, the CFO will dismiss the results as anecdote. With it, Level 4 becomes the lever that funds the next round of leadership development.

A rhythm that sticks: reporting cadence and stakeholder buy-in

Evaluation only works if it lands on someone's desk at a predictable cadence. Tie Level 2 reporting to the end of each module, Level 3 to the 30-60-90 review cycle, and Level 4 to the quarterly people review. The data then meets decision-makers while it still matters.

Brief the executive team in plain Australian English. Avoid L&D jargon, lead with the business number, and follow with the behaviour evidence underneath. No surprises is the principle. Surface early signals and adjust, rather than waiting twelve months for a final report.

Pick one cohort this quarter and run the full four-level cycle on it, end to end. Use the resulting case to build the muscle across the broader leadership portfolio.

Putting Levels 2, 3 and 4 into practice is less about a single methodology and more about consistent habits. Decide which behaviours the program is meant to shift, agree the metrics with the business owner, and protect calendar time for measurement. The programs that get funded are the ones whose evidence is repeatable, not heroic.

For an L&D leader in a mid-sized Australian firm, the natural starting point is one upcoming leadership cohort: name the one Level 3 behaviour you expect to change, map it to one Level 4 business metric before launch, and schedule the 60-day manager review before the first session runs.

Learning to Performance

Learning to Performance, a complete training approach, gives companies world-class training to drive significant return. This approach includes upfront work (Impact Mapping, design), training (for staff and company executives), and post-training efforts to ensure training transfer. This unique recipe - the key for successful training and adoption - is changing the way companies implement training. This methodology could work with any content for organizations in any industry.