By Leena N. Shimpanda
Over the years, the field of Organisational Learning and Development (OLD) has gained increasing prominence.
Many organisations now operate dedicated learning and development units, managed by Organisational Learning and Development Officers or Learning and Development Officers, roles formerly referred to as training officers.
In both the public and private sectors, these units are increasingly positioned as standalone functions rather than sub-units of Human Resources, marking a significant shift from past practice.
On Monday, 26 January 2026, the Minister of Information, Communication and Technology (MICT), Hon. Emma Theofelus, posed a thought-provoking question during her ministry’s year opening staff engagement when she asked: “What is the point of going to a workshop if you come back the same person?”
While directed at her ministry’s staff, the question resonates far beyond a single institution. It speaks to every employee who has attended employer-sponsored training, every supervisor who has approved a training request, and every learning and development practitioner tasked with facilitating these interventions.
When an employee is sent for training, there is an implicit expectation that learning will occur and that newly acquired knowledge or skills will be applied in the workplace.
However, learning cannot be assumed, it requires willingness, engagement, and accountability from the participant.
In practice, training and workshops are sometimes perceived as opportunities for travel allowances or time away from routine duties. While these may be incidental benefits, they were never intended to be the primary objective.
Ideally, such benefits should be secondary outcomes of meaningful learning. Yet, in many cases, skill acquisition becomes the unintended consequence rather than the central purpose.
This situation raises a critical question, who bears responsibility for ensuring that learning translates into performance improvement? Much like the basic education system where responsibility is shared among learners, parents or guardians, teachers, and school administrators, organisational learning also operates within a shared responsibility framework.
First, employees must take ownership of their development by approaching training with genuine intent to learn and actively participating in all learning activities. Second, supervisors play a critical role.
Beyond approving training requests, they are responsible for identifying actual skills gaps in collaboration with OLD practitioners, supporting appropriate training selection, and monitoring post training performance. In this regard, evidence of training effectiveness should be reflected through changes in behaviour, skills application, attitudes, and engagement.
Equally important is the role of Organisational Learning and Development Officers, who represent the organisation’s investment in human capital development.
Their responsibilities extend beyond organising training programmes, they include assessing training relevance, ensuring alignment with organisational objectives, and measuring return on investment (RoI). As highlighted by Hon. Theofelus, training is funded from limited budgets.
Measuring RoI is therefore essential to demonstrate that learning has occurred and that it delivers value to both the organisation and the individual.
It is widely acknowledged that during periods of financial constraint, learning and development budgets are often among the first to be reduced. This trend is frequently driven by a lack of visible evidence linking training expenditure to organisational performance.
Without credible data demonstrating impact, management scepticism is understandable. However, when the key stakeholders in the organisational learning ecosystem fulfil their respective roles and provide measurable outcomes, the value of learning investments becomes clearer and more defensible.
The conversation, therefore, should shift from questioning whether training should occur to examining whether stakeholders understand and execute their responsibilities effectively. Organisations must prioritise measuring training outcomes, aligning learning initiatives with strategic goals, and quantifying the financial and operational impact of employee development. Embedding RoI reporting as a standing agenda item at management or executive committee meetings would be a significant step toward accountability and transparency.
As Namibia strives toward Vision 2030 and the development of a knowledge based economy, investment in human capital remains indispensable.
This ambition requires a skilled, educated, and innovative workforce. Neglecting Organisational Learning and Development functions undermines this objective. OLD practitioners must be capacitated not only to identify skills gaps but also to evaluate learning outcomes rigorously.
Ultimately, validating training budgets through evidence-based impact assessment will strengthen management confidence, safeguard learning investments, and ensure that employee development contributes meaningfully to organisational performance and national development. Only then can training be viewed not as a cost, but as a strategic investment with lasting benefits.
