Behavioural training in India has come a long way from its early focus on process and functional learning. What was once aspirational has now matured into a structured, research-backed discipline that blends conceptual depth with experiential practice. Yet despite this evolution, the gap between intent and impact still largely defines how organisations approach soft skills today.
In this conversation, Gabriel Banerjee, a Learning Partner with experience across pharma, IT staffing, and freelance consulting, breaks down what’s genuinely working and what remains performative. He unpacks why GCCs, BFSI, and manufacturing are leading the investment curve, why middle managers remain the toughest cohort to train, and where the measurement conversation tends to fall apart. His insights cut through the buzzwords to show what behavioural change actually requires.
TPB Team: You’ve worked across pharma, IT staffing, and now as a freelance learning partner. How has the appetite for behavioural training shifted in that time?
Gabriel: The answer is given in two folds:
In the early days of training in India (around 1999), the focus was largely on process and functional learning, with most programs centred on operational efficiency and role-based skills. Behavioural training, at that time, was more aspirational than structured. Over time, organisations such as NIS Sparta and Dale Carnegie played a pivotal role in driving the evolution of behavioural training, significantly shaping the industry into what it is today.
Behavioural training today has evolved to focus strongly on effectiveness and real-world application. There is a clear shift from standalone programs to immersive workshops, where workshops serve as spaces for practice, reflection, and skill application, while programs provide the underlying theoretical foundation. In today’s context, behavioural training integrates both, combining conceptual understanding with experiential learning to drive meaningful and sustained behaviour change.
TPB Team: When organisations say they want “behavioural training,” what are they actually asking for and what they actually need?
Gabriel: Want – Organisations are seeking interventions that can decisively shift mindsets and propel individuals and teams toward a strong success orientation.
Need – Organisations are seeking interventions that not only drive meaningful learning but also ensure its effective implementation in the workplace.
TPB Team: Which industries in India are investing in behavioural change most seriously right now, and why?
Gabriel: Global Capability Centres (GCCs) are currently leading investments in behavioural change, followed by the BFSI and manufacturing sectors. This is driven by their increasing need for highly skilled talent and flawless execution. As demand rises for well-rounded professionals with strong technical, functional, and behavioural capabilities, organisations are prioritising behavioural interventions to enhance performance and sustain business outcomes.
TPB Team: What does a behavioural training intervention look like when it actually sticks?
Gabriel: The phrase “actually sticks” carries multiple layers of meaning, which can vary depending on the stakeholder; what a CHRO implies may differ from a CPO’s perspective. At one level, it reflects positive participant feedback; the training was engaging and well-received. At another level, the program delivered actionable learning that can be applied on the job.
However, the true essence of “it actually sticks” lies in whether the intervention leads to sustained behavioural change and successful implementation of the learning in real work contexts.
TPB Team: From your Managerial Development Program (MDP) and Leadership Development Program (LDP) experience, at what level does behavioural training tend to land best?
Gabriel: Both Management Development Programs (MDPs) and Leadership Development Programs (LDPs) adopt a layered approach to behavioural training. MDPs typically focus on the ecosystem of managing self, individuals, teams, and immediate stakeholders, while LDPs address the broader ecosystem of leading, spanning self, people, teams, managers, and the organisation at large.
This approach is relevant across all levels, as research consistently highlights that effectiveness is built on a combination of functional, technical, and behavioural capabilities. The relative emphasis on each, however, evolves with one’s position in the organisational hierarchy. For instance, at the individual contributor level, functional and technical skills tend to dominate, with comparatively less emphasis on behavioural aspects. As individuals progress into managerial and leadership roles, the balance shifts, with behavioural capabilities becoming increasingly critical for success.
TPB Team: How do you spot a tick-box behavioural training programme from the outside?
Gabriel: The moment we hear statements like, “We’re looking for a two-day training program, and it should be amazing,” it often signals a checkbox approach. Such one-line requests typically indicate that the initiative is being treated as a one-off activity, rather than a thoughtfully designed intervention aimed at driving meaningful and sustained impact.
TPB Team: Have you ever been asked to design something you knew wouldn’t work? How did you handle it?
Gabriel: The best part of this field (learning & development) has always given me something that would work. I mean, that there is nothing that hasn’t worked. What has happened is that while working there, there may be a change in the program/workshop, a change in assessments, or a change in the way impact is measured. That’s why the team focuses on the pre-screening very methodically so that the changes can be handled well.
I was drafting a Leadership Academy plan for a manufacturing organisation and catered to various levels. The biggest challenge came in execution and the impact scores. We did have a meeting with all stakeholders and started using various techniques like Group Coaching, Peer learning mechanisms to handle the change.
TPB Team: Is there a particular format, workshops, e-learning, or coaching that gets misused the most?
Gabriel: This field is based on researched based approach. Hence, all the formats (workshops, e-learning, coaching, TNA, TNI) are available. People tend to use the same format or tweak it a little when a need arises, and this is where it gets misused.
TPB Team: Where does the measurement conversation break down in behavioural training?
Gabriel: The conversation around measurement should begin at the very outset. Often, stakeholders express the need to assess the effectiveness of a program or workshop; however, challenges arise when there is a lack of alignment on what exactly should be measured. Measurement itself operates across multiple dimensions like training effectiveness (participant feedback), learning effectiveness (knowledge acquisition and retention), change effectiveness (behavioural shift), and results effectiveness (business impact). Attempting to address all four simultaneously without clear prioritisation can lead to confusion and derail meaningful discussions.
TPB Team: Middle managers are often cited as the hardest group to train behaviourally. What are your thoughts on that?
Gabriel: To understand this, it is important to recognise that middle managers operate across both sides of the management ecosystem, managing self, people, and teams, while simultaneously navigating stakeholders and peers. Handling such diverse expectations and relationships makes people management inherently complex.
When we emphasise people centricity, we are essentially focusing on behavioural dynamics. This is why programs for this group must be anchored in behavioural understanding and meaningful performance conversations. As the principle goes, if you understand behaviour and can engage in effective performance dialogue, you create real impact.
Generic programs often fail to engage this segment. Middle managers are not looking for theoretical inputs; they seek practical, problem-solving approaches that address real workplace challenges. Without this relevance, they are unlikely to opt in or fully participate even when nominated.
TPB Team: What’s the one conversation Indian L&D teams aren’t having that they should be?
Gabriel: While Indian Learning & Development (L&D) teams have become incredibly adept at scaling technical training and digital transformation, the “missing” conversation is often about moving from “Output” to “Outcomes.” The L&D narrative is dominated by completion rates, “happiness scores” (CSAT), and total hours of learning delivered. While these are easy to track, they don’t necessarily correlate to business success. So, in any means, the L&D team should start speaking more about the outcome of the said intervention.
TPB Team: If an HR leader reading this wants to audit their behavioural training investments, where do they start?
Gabriel: The HR leader should first focus on whether this is a program or a journey because then the nature of the audit will be more specific. However, in general, the following are options to audit:
- Cost of program (training delivery + content + travel)
- Cost of participation (Cost of program/no of participants)
- Feedback Score (Industry avg for Jr. 90% plus, for mid 80% plus and for senior 70%)
- Knowledge test pre & post (if there is a score update)
If there is one takeaway from Gabriel’s perspective, it is that behavioural training only sticks when it is treated as a journey, not a checkbox. Indian L&D teams have mastered the art of scaling delivery, but the next leap lies in shifting the conversation from outputs to outcomes. For HR leaders willing to audit honestly and design intentionally, the opportunity to drive real behavioural impact has never been greater.
