Overview

Organisation: A technology services and product company based in Bangalore (name withheld at organisation's request) Sector: Technology (enterprise software and managed services) Employees in programme: 800 (all non-senior-management employees) Programme: Dheya Corporate Partnership — RAPD-Aligned L&D Redesign Duration: 14 months (February 2024 to April 2025) Primary Outcome: 41% reduction in training programme dropout; 67% improvement in skills-to-behaviour transfer as measured by manager assessments

The Diagnosis: Expensive Content That Nobody Finished

The company's Head of People was blunt about the situation when she first engaged Dheya. "We have a world-class LMS. We have licensed content from three premium providers. We spend more per head on L&D than our industry peers. Our completion rates are terrible and our managers tell us they see no change in how people work. I need someone to tell me why."

A Dheya diagnostic assessment across a sample of 80 employees — drawn proportionally from across departments and seniority levels — identified the core issue within four weeks.

The curriculum was built around role categories, not individuals. Every software developer received the same technical upskilling track. Every project manager received the same leadership modules. Within those role categories, there was no differentiation for how individuals learn, what motivates them to engage with developmental content, or what skills gaps were genuinely present versus assumed.

Motivation to learn was unaddressed. Employees understood that they were required to complete certain training modules. They did not understand why those modules were relevant to their specific trajectory or how completing them would change their work experience or compensation. Training was a compliance activity, not a development activity.

The content was front-loaded with theory. The most popular modules — measured by completion — were the ones that began with practical application. The modules with the highest dropout rates began with framework explanation and required approximately forty-five minutes before reaching anything hands-on. This structural mismatch was consistent across the three content providers.

The diagnostic concluded with a recommendation that surprised the People team: before redesigning any training content, assess the RAPD profiles of the entire 800-person cohort. The way people learn, the content formats that engage them, and the skill areas that align with their natural orientations are all shaped by their RAPD profiles. Building a learning system without that data is building in the dark.

The Assessment Phase

RAPD assessments were administered to all 800 employees over a three-week period in March 2024. Assessment completion was 94% (752 of 800 employees), with the remaining 48 employees completing assessments in the following month.

Each employee received an individual profile report. Manager-facing aggregate reports were generated for each team of six or more employees, showing the RAPD distribution within the team without identifying individual scores.

Three findings shaped the redesign:

Finding 1: High Practical orientation was underserved

38% of the workforce showed dominant Practical (P) orientations — a natural preference for hands-on, applied, tangible learning experiences. The existing curriculum was heavily conceptual and framework-based. Employees with high Practical profiles were completing conceptual modules at a rate of 29% — less than half the already-poor 54% average.

When the team analysed which modules had above-average completion rates, nearly all of them had one thing in common: they started with a real scenario, a problem to solve, or a tool to use. The employees were not resistant to learning — they were resistant to learning that did not immediately connect to doing.

Finding 2: High Relational orientation was being trained as if they were Analytical

22% of the workforce showed dominant Relational profiles. These employees were enrolled in individual, self-paced online modules and given no collaborative learning options. Relational-oriented employees are most engaged when learning involves interaction — cohort-based programmes, peer discussion, case discussion, role play. Self-paced e-learning is close to the worst possible format for them.

Completion rates for self-paced modules among employees with dominant Relational profiles: 31%.

Finding 3: Directive-oriented employees were dropping out of foundational content

17% of employees showed dominant Directive profiles — employees who are motivated by outcomes, impact, and forward movement. This group was completing foundational skill modules (which they perceived as below their level) at 38%, while their completion of advanced leadership and strategic-thinking modules was 81%.

They were not disengaged learners. They were bored learners whose engagement threshold required content that felt appropriately challenging and relevant to where they wanted to go.

The Redesign

The curriculum redesign was completed over three months (April–June 2024) and launched in July 2024. The redesign had four components.

Component 1: Personalised Learning Tracks

The 800-employee workforce was divided into four primary tracks based on RAPD profiles:

  • Analytical Track: Concept-first content with deep dives, structured frameworks, and rigorous testing. Heavy emphasis on written materials, research, and independent study.
  • Practical Track: Application-first content where every module begins with a real scenario or tool exercise. Framework explanation follows practice, not precedes it. Physical workshop components added where possible.
  • Relational Track: Cohort-based learning in groups of 8–12, with scheduled synchronous discussion sessions, case studies presented in collaborative format, and peer-mentoring assignments built into each module.
  • Directive Track: Fast-paced tracks with minimal foundational review, emphasis on decision-making case studies, leadership scenarios, and content that explicitly connects skill to impact and career advancement.

For the 23% of employees with balanced profiles (no single dominant orientation), a blended track was offered that combined elements of two tracks, with a self-selection component allowing employees to shift their balance based on how they experienced the content.

Component 2: Manager Integration

Team-level aggregate RAPD reports were shared with all 94 managers in the company. A four-hour workshop was run for all managers on interpreting the reports and adapting their feedback and development conversations to individual learning styles.

The most valuable output of the manager workshops, according to post-workshop surveys, was not the content itself but the shift in framing: "I've been frustrated with my team members who don't engage with training. The workshop helped me understand that the problem is not their commitment — it is that we've been giving them the wrong kind of learning. That changes everything."

Component 3: Content Audit and Vendor Negotiation

All existing licensed content was audited against the four-track framework. Content that was fundamentally incompatible with any track (predominantly abstract, non-applied, non-collaborative, and non-directional simultaneously) was retired. Several modules were re-edited by Dheya's content team to add application-first opening sequences for the Practical track.

Vendor contracts were renegotiated to allow track-specific content curation — instead of every employee accessing the full library, each track accessed a curated subset appropriate to their learning style.

Component 4: Completion Incentive Redesign

The previous completion incentive was a universal quarterly bonus tied to total training hours completed. This was replaced with a track-specific incentive tied to skill demonstration — employees received a recognition bonus not for completing training but for demonstrating, in a manager-verified assessment, that a skill had been transferred to their actual work.

This change had an unexpected secondary effect: managers became invested in the L&D programme in a way they had not been previously, because their assessment of skills transfer was now a component of the system.

Results

Dropout Reduction

Overall training programme dropout fell from 46% to 27% — a 41% reduction in the dropout rate. Dropout is defined as enrolling in a module and not completing it within the designated window.

Track-specific dropout rates post-redesign:

  • Analytical track: 19% (from 38%)
  • Practical track: 21% (from 61%)
  • Relational track: 18% (from 44%)
  • Directive track: 22% (from 41%)

The Practical track showed the largest absolute improvement — a 40-percentage-point reduction — because it was the most severely misaligned in the original design.

Skills-to-Behaviour Transfer

Manager assessments of skills transfer — conducted three months after module completion — improved from a baseline average of 31% ("yes, I observe this skill in their daily work") to 52%. The Head of People had set a target of 50% as a success threshold; the programme exceeded that threshold.

The highest transfer rates were observed in the Practical track (58%) and Relational track (55%), both of which had been the most mismatched in the original design and therefore had the largest room for improvement.

Return on Investment

The company's L&D budget remained constant at ₹2.3 crore. Post-redesign, the People team calculated that useful training completions (completions leading to demonstrated skills transfer) had increased from approximately 2,100 employee-module completions annually to approximately 4,400 — a 110% improvement in productivity from the same budget.

The company has not yet quantified the downstream business impact — the revenue or productivity effects of the skill improvements — and Dheya does not claim this data. What is measurable is that the learning system is now working as intended: employees are completing training and showing evidence that it changed how they work.

What Other Organisations Can Learn

The central insight from this case is one that organisations resist because it feels like additional complexity: not everyone learns the same way, and a uniform training delivery system will always serve some employees well and others poorly.

The RAPD assessment provides a principled, evidence-based way to differentiate — not by creating endless variations, but by organising employees into a small number of learning-style tracks that reflect genuinely different orientations. Four tracks for 800 people is manageable. The alternative — a single track that works for nobody — has a known cost, and that cost is measurable in dropout rates and training budgets that produce no observable change.

Dheya works with technology companies, financial services organisations, and large corporates to align L&D investments with employee psychology. For information about corporate partnerships, contact our institutional team or visit /for-institutions.