Revisiting Training Accountability in Indian Maharatna Enterprises: Why Measuring Effectiveness Matters More Than Measuring Training Volume

Training Accountability, Training Volume vs. Effectiveness, Kirkpatrick Evaluation Framework, Maharatna CPSEs, Overall Training Effectiveness (OTE), Human Resource Development, Public Sector Undertakings, Transfer of Training, Training ROI, Level 4 Evaluation

India's Maharatna Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) training ecosystem observe a consistent accountability gap, in spite of the substantial investment in human resource development (HRD). Training accountability in Indian Maharatna companies, normally associated with the training volume and base parameters such as man-hours, budget expenditure, program satisfaction and programme attendance rather than value delivered by the organization. This empirical study observe and evaluate the impact of training in seven selected Maharatna companies such as - IOCL, NTPC, ONGC, SAIL, GAIL, HPCL, and POWERGRID, (anonymously M1 to M7) using the Kirkpatrick's Framework of Four-Level Evaluation, namely Reaction, Learning, Behaviour, and Results. The study challenges the significance of evaluating the training volume—man-hours, budget expenditure, and programme attendance—compared with training effectiveness. A quantitative and longitudinal research design is used and data collected from a stratified sample of 2,520 employees across Junior, Middle, and Senior management levels of these CPSE. Three standardized training interventions were observed—Supervisory Development, Digital Literacy Enhancement, and Effective Communication— where the evaluation was done using pre- and post-training assessments of the participating employees, dual-source of behavioural ratings, and HOD-rated business impact instruments. Statistical analyses for this study included Paired t-tests, One-Way ANOVA, Pearson Correlation, and Exploratory Factor Analysis. These tools were applied to test five primary research hypotheses. The findings confirm that training is highly effective at the knowledge level (Cohen's d = 3.37) but at the same time it reveals a statistically insignificant correlation (r = 0.08, p > 0.05) between supervisor-rated behavioural change stage (Level 3) and HOD-rated business results or impact (Level 4)—labelled as the 'Broken Link.' Moreover, a 'Senior Learning Slump' was also observed, where the Senior Managers showed the highest overconfidence gap (4.2%) between their self-perception and their supervisor ratings. Diagnostic factor analysis unveiled Training Infrastructure as the dominant systemic variable—the poor facilities produced an effect of 8.5% drop in Overall Training Effectiveness (OTE), while the trainer quality variance was found to be statistically negligible for consideration. The Pearson correlation between supervisor-rated behavioural change (at Level 3) and HOD-rated business results (at Level 4) is statistically insignificant (r = 0.08, p = 0.052), which shows a systemic ‘accountability gap’. The study also concludes with actionable policy recommendations for CPSEs and Maharatna L&D practitioners, emphasizing a shift from activity-based to impact-based training evaluation as the future practice. The article argues that a fundamental reformation of training governance in Indian PSUs is the need of the hour, and a shift is required from “counting what was delivered” to “measuring what was changed”.