ARC©: The New Benchmark for Leadership Training with Impact
- Sandbox
- Sep 12
- 10 min read
Corporate training is mired in inertia. Organisations pour billions into workshops and e‑learning but see little change in behaviour or business outcomes. Research shows that around 70 % of strategic transformations fail at the point of execution[1] and only 10–20 % of classroom learning transfers back to the workplace[2]. At the same time, 60 % of first‑time managers are promoted without ever receiving leadership training[3]. The result is a leadership pipeline rich in technical expertise but poor in people leadership and execution capability.
This white paper introduces ARC©, the latest evolution of Sandbox’s approach to leadership and capability development. Born from over a decade of performance consulting and thousands of consulting & delivery hours spent shoulder‑to‑shoulder with clients, ARC© codifies what distinguishes effective development from training theatre.
It sets a benchmark—Applied, Real, Conversion—that every intervention must meet to count as training. We provide evidence from independent research to support ARC’s principles.
Why conventional training fails
Execution gaps derail strategy
Research on transformations shows that roughly 70 % of large‑scale change initiatives fail, largely because organisations struggle to execute on strategy[1]. Leaders may understand the vision but lack the tools and behaviours to drive change across teams. This execution gap is exacerbated by the fact that new leaders are often promoted for technical ability, not people leadership: 60 % report never receiving formal training and a similar proportion falter within their first two years[3]. When execution lags, culture misfires and leadership falters, shareholder value suffers.
The Training–Transfer problem
Organisations worldwide invest heavily in learning and development—yet, remarkably, only 10–20 % of training content is applied on the job. While this figure originated in Western literature, expert consensus remains consistent across cultures. In regions with robust tracking, the retention-and-application gap is even more striking. For instance, available research suggests that merely 12 % of learners applied their training at work, which also suggests that learner needs aren’t being mapped effectively. Meanwhile, more studies estimate the global learning transfer rate at between 10–22 %.
One European meta-analysis suggests that immediately after training, approximately 62 % of content is applied—but this drops sharply to 44 % after six months and just 34 % after a year, underscoring the critical role of reinforcement and workplace support.
Today’s corporate learning environments too often rely on disconnected classroom modules, delivered by facilitators without real-world credibility, and evaluated through “smile sheets” rather than through evidence-based behavioural or business outcomes. Absent of applied practice, skilled facilitation, and accountability mechanisms, the majority of learning dissipates—and the business sees no tangible return.
Attendance is not capability
Many organisations equate attendance with development. Leaders attend workshops or webinars and are counted as “trained,” but there is no assurance that they can mobilise teams, align behaviours or deliver outcomes. This mindset perpetuates tick‑box training and allows capability gaps to persist.
Application: The Missing Link in Capability Building
The key finding across research, diagnostics, and frontline observation is that the difference between training that drives real change and training that does not is not content, delivery style, or attendance—it is application. Specifically, it is the opportunity to execute in a structured and controlled environment that translates knowledge into muscle memory and performance gains.
A compelling example comes from the world of Formula 1. Red Bull Racing holds the record for the fastest pit stop in history: a blistering 1.82 seconds. This wasn’t achieved through theoretical knowledge or classroom instruction. It was the result of methodical application—repeated, high-pressure rehearsals that mirrored real race conditions. Every crew member trained in their specific role, not in isolation, but as part of a finely tuned system, until flawless execution became instinctual. The lesson is clear: performance comes not just from knowing, but from doing—again and again, under conditions that simulate reality.
This is where most corporate training fails. Without mechanisms for applied practice, feedback loops, or integration with real workflows, training remains a disconnected event—useful in theory but quickly forgotten.
This is the very gap the ARC© methodology is designed to close.
Introducing the ARC© Method
ARC© is Sandbox’s benchmark for what counts as real training. It stands for 3 key stages the together create maximum training impact Applied, Real and Conversion:
Applied – Is the learning anchored in the participant’s actual work? In Sandbox engagements, participants work on People Value Creation (PVC) projects that tackle live business challenges. Whether redesigning a supply‑chain process or launching a new product, participants apply new frameworks immediately, ensuring skills are honed in context & immediate applicability.
Real – Are the facilitators credible practitioners? and are outcomes tied to robust measures? Our programmes are led by consultants with decades of industry experience, and success is measured through diagnostic assessments, behavioural observations and business KPIs. There are no superficial satisfaction surveys—impact is quantified.
Conversion – Does knowledge convert into capability and commercial value? Every Sandbox cohort must deliver tangible outcomes, such as efficiency gains, cost savings or new revenue. The conversion of learning into results is tracked and reported to leadership. If learning does not translate into performance, we iterate until it does.
The diagram illustrates the ARC© framework: Applied learning is grounded in live work; Real learning is credible and measured; Conversion ensures that knowledge turns into capability and results. The arrows emphasise that all three elements are interconnected—without any one of them, development collapses into theory or theatre.
Evidence for ARC©
High‑performance analogies
As a pioneer in gamified and experiential learning interventions for high performance, Sandbox has always modelled its transformations on high performing teams recognised around the world. Elite performers do not attend training for its own sake; they practise until ready. Navy SEALs rehearse missions under realistic conditions, measuring readiness against operational standards. Formula 1 teams treat every pit stop as an opportunity to shave milliseconds off lap times. Michelin‑star kitchens embed mastery through repetition, feedback and proof. These environments share the ARC© ingredients: real practice, real experts, real metrics.
Research on applied learning and ROI
Independent research supports ARC’s principles:
Experiential learning drives retention. A National Training Laboratory study cited by the Association for Talent Development reports that hands‑on, experiential learning yields retention rates of around 75 %, compared with 5 % for lectures and 10 % for reading. When learners practise in real situations, they remember and apply more.
Applied projects deliver higher ROI. Sandbox’s own flagship leadership programme (PLDP©) requiring participants to run business impact projects can attest to over US$50 Million unlocked in revenue, efficiency gains and product innovation delivering 25x return on investment in Sri Lanka alone. Outside Sri Lanka, programmes which require participants to run applied projects, report that over 95 % of participants apply their learning to their roles, generating US$500 million in client revenue and delivering a 76× return on investment. Research shows that programmes tailored to specific business challenges have four times higher implementation rates and that structured reinforcement—including applied projects and peer accountability—results in 65 % higher skill retention after one year.
Learning cultures outperform. Bersin’s high‑impact learning culture research reveals that organisations linking learning to business objectives are 32 % more likely to be first to market, 37 % more productive and 58 % more prepared to meet future demands. When training is applied, real and measured, it becomes a strategic lever.
These numbers confirm that ARC©-driven training isn’t just effective — it’s essential. For shareholders and leaders serious about performance, ARC© is the bridge that transforms employees from cost centres into value-generating assets.
Sandbox’s case demonstrates that when training is embedded in execution, learning becomes business strategy. The ARC© methodology, as validated through the PVC framework, offers not just an alternative to traditional training — but a blueprint for ROI-driven human capital development. As more organisations look to justify learning investments at the boardroom level, Sandbox’s ARC-backed model provides the language, metrics, and credibility to do so.
About Sandbox: the expertise behind ARC©
Sandbox is not a training vendor; we are a human performance consultancy built for outcomes. Our philosophy—People Power Performance—rests on the belief that people are assets, not overheads. We work where strategy meets culture, turning people from an expense line into performance‑driving assets.
Our proprietary CSP© framework aligns culture, structure and people to create high‑performance operating systems, while tools like OAR© convert people data into actionable insight.
Our track record underpins ARC©. We have observed that the leaders who transform their organisations do three things differently: they embed learning in real work, learn from practitioners who have delivered results, and are held accountable for turning knowledge into measurable outcomes. ARC formalises those principles so that every development intervention—whether it is a culture transformation, a performance‑consulting engagement, a leadership development programme or a bespoke capability workshop—passes the same test.
The Sandbox guarantee
Sandbox’s mission is to redefine what training means.
If an intervention is not Applied, Real and delivering Conversion, it is not training—it is theatre.
By adopting ARC© as a benchmark, organisations can:
Anchor learning in business priorities, ensuring relevance and immediate application.
Engage credible practitioners who have delivered results and can coach participants in context.
Measure impact through diagnostics, behavioural evidence and business KPIs.
Unlock shareholder value by converting human potential into performance gains.
As leaders and HR professionals adopt the language of Applied, Real and Conversion, the industry will shift from counting training hours to measuring performance conversion.
Where Does This Leave HR & L&D?
In a space still locally dominated by functional HR practices and vague training objectives, the ARC© Method represents a wake-up call.
Too many HR and L&D teams remain mired in compliance-driven training, vendor management, and subjective evaluations. Learning is equated with events, not outcomes. Success is still measured by attendance, completion certificates, or how “engaging” the session felt — not whether behaviour changed or the business improved.
This is no longer tenable.
As Sri Lanka’s own economy undergoes structural shifts — demanding productivity, innovation, and leadership readiness — HR must reposition itself from event organiser to performance partner. ARC© provides the diagnostic and design framework to make this shift real.
Sandbox has already seen this transformation: organisations that adopt ARC© principles elevate their HR teams into strategic enablers. L&D functions that used to be reactive are now proactively driving ROI, capability-building, and culture shifts aligned to business goals.
If HR cannot quantify the value of learning in business terms, it will be seen as dispensable.If it can — it becomes indispensable.
HR must enter the boardroom equipped with numbers, not narratives. It must speak the language of EBIT, efficiency, and execution — or risk being replaced by functions that can. ARC© is the pathway for HR to evolve from a service desk to a strategic driver. It offers a framework for capability building that is anchored to business value, not just learning outcomes.
“HR must stop counting heads in a room and start counting the business results of those heads. In today’s boardrooms, anecdotal impact doesn’t cut it. ARC© empowers HR to trade smile sheets for shareholder value — and reclaim its seat at the strategy table.”
The choice is stark but simple: Enter the boardroom equipped with numbers, or risk being removed from it entirely.ARC© is the bridge between intention and impact. It’s not just a better model — it’s a survival strategy for HR and L&D in a results-driven future.
Performance by design
Corporate training’s poor track record is not for lack of investment but for lack of design. Programmes too often prioritise knowledge over practice, theory over experience and satisfaction over results. Research shows that a majority of strategic initiatives fail in execution[1] and that only a fraction of training is ever applied[2].
Sandbox’s ARC© Method re‑engineers’ development by demanding that it be Applied to real work, Real in its expertise and measurement, and oriented toward Conversion of knowledge into capability and commercial value. This benchmark emerges from two decades of consulting across industries, our proprietary CSP© framework and a track record of delivering quantifiable results. Evidence from experiential learning research[4], applied project studies[5] and high‑impact learning cultures[6] validates the approach.
Training should not be an event; it should be an engine of performance. With ARC©, Sandbox invites organisations to move beyond theory and into a future where every development dollar drives shareholder value. It is time for ARC© to enter the corporate zeitgeist. When you plan your next training, ask: Is it Applied? Is it Real? Will it Convert? That is performance by design.
“If your training doesn’t generate business results, it isn’t training — it’s entertainment.”
References
[1] Garcia, J. (2022) ‘Common pitfalls in transformations: a conversation with Jon Garcia’. McKinsey & Company, 29 March. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/transformation/our-insights/common-pitfalls-in-transformations-a-conversation-with-jon-garcia (Accessed: 11 September 2025)
[2] U.S. Office of Personnel Management (n.d.) ‘Training transfer’. Training and development policy wiki. Available at: https://www.opm.gov/wiki/training/training-transfer.ashx (Accessed: 11 September 2025)
[3] Wharton Executive Education (2024) ‘Managing to fail? Why new leaders need training’. Wharton Executive Education (Wharton@Work newsletter), September. Available at: https://executiveeducation.wharton.upenn.edu/thought-leadership/wharton-at-work/2024/09/new-leaders-need-training/ (Accessed: September 11, 2025).
[4] Belch, D. (2019) ‘Measuring learning in the moment: The KPIs of VR training’. ATD Blog, 17 April. Available at: https://www.td.org/content/atd-blog/measuring-learning-in-the-moment-the-kpis-of-vr-training (Accessed: September 11, 2025).
[5] Bouttell, L. (2023) ‘Are leadership courses worth it?’ Quarterdeck Ltd., 15 July. Available at: https://quarterdeck.co.uk/articles/are-leadership-courses-worth-it (Accessed: September 11, 2025).
[6] Woodfield, S. (2019) Developing a learning culture, Moorhouse Consulting. Available at: https://www.moorhouseconsulting.com/insights/perspectives/developing-a-learning-culture/ (Accessed: September 11, 2025).
[7] Baldwin, T.T. and Ford, J.K. (1988) “Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research,” Personnel Psychology, 41(1), pp. 63–105.
[8] Saks, A.M. and Burke, L.A. (2012) “An investigation into the relationship between training evaluation and the transfer of training,” International Journal of Training and Development, 16(2), pp. 118–127.
[9] Salas, E. et al. (2012) “The science of training and development in organizations: What matters in practice,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(2), pp. 74–101.
[10] Training and development policy wiki (no date b) U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Available at: https://www.opm.gov/wiki/training/Training-Policy-Overview.ashx (Accessed: September 11, 2025).
[11] Yelon, S.L. et al. (2004) “Intention to transfer learning: The role of trainee characteristics, workplace environment, and training delivery,” Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(2), pp. 67–94.
[12] Blume, B.D. et al. (2010) “Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review,” Journal of Management, 36(4), pp. 1065–1105.
[13] Grossman, R. and Salas, E. (2011) “The transfer of training: What really matters,” International Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), pp. 103–120.
[14] Detterman, D.K. and Sternberg, R. (1993) Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
[15] Holton, E.F. (1996) “The flawed four-level evaluation model,” Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7(1), pp. 5–21.
[16] Ford, J.K., Yelon, S.L. and Billington, A.Q. (2011) “Am I ready? Examining the role of trainee readiness in the training transfer process,” Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(1), pp. 77–101.
[17] Pineda-Herrero, P. et al. (2011) “Evaluation of training transfer: The study of the application of training in the workplace using the Learning Transfer System Inventory (LTSI),” Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 29, pp. 1845–1851.
[18] European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (2008). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
[19] World Bank Group (2017) Sri Lanka development update. World Bank Group.
[20] Wijesooriya, W.A.P. and Senanayake, G.M. (2021) “Employability of Sri Lankan University Graduates: Employer Perspective,” Journal of Management and Development Studies, 30, pp. 44–58.
[21] De Silva, W.I., (2022). Labour Market Trends and Youth Unemployment in Sri Lanka. Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka (IPS). [online] Available at: https://www.ips.lk (Accessed 10 Sep. 2025).
[22] Broad, M.L. and Newstrom, J.W., (1992). “Transfer of training: Action-packed strategies to ensure high payoff from training investments.” Addison-Wesley.
[23] Saks, A.M., (2002). “So, what is a good transfer of training anyway? “Training & Development, 56(4), pp.38–42.
[24] Gurd, B., (2021). From the Pit Lane to Performance: What HR Can Learn from Formula 1. Harvard Business Review. [online] Available at: https://hbr.org/2021/06/from-the-pit-lane-to-performance [Accessed 10 Sep. 2025].
