{"id":2239,"date":"2026-02-18T10:40:23","date_gmt":"2026-02-18T10:40:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/profitability.com\/?p=2239"},"modified":"2026-02-20T11:01:59","modified_gmt":"2026-02-20T11:01:59","slug":"the-forgetting-curve-is-winning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/profitability.com\/en\/the-forgetting-curve-is-winning\/","title":{"rendered":"The Forgetting Curve is winning"},"content":{"rendered":"

The corporate training industry spends over $340 billion a year on learning. But most of it doesn\u2019t stick. People attend, complete, or click through sessions, and then forget. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This isn\u2019t just frustrating for L&D teams. It\u2019s a measurable business loss. And it starts with a well-researched phenomenon: the forgetting curve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why we forget: the Ebbinghaus curve<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the 1880s, Hermann Ebbinghaus set out to understand memory. He tested himself using made-up syllables so any prior knowledge wouldn\u2019t interfere with the results. His findings were clear: memory drops fast, especially in the first few hours.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Time After Learning<\/strong><\/td>Approximate Retention<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
20 minutes<\/td>~60%<\/td><\/tr>
1 hour<\/td>~44%<\/td><\/tr>
1 day<\/td>~34%<\/td><\/tr>
1 week<\/td>~25%<\/td><\/tr>
31 days<\/td>~21%<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Modern studies have recreated this effect and confirm the pattern: without reinforcement, most learning fades fast. The often-quoted \u201cwe forget 90% in 30 days\u201d is exaggerated, but the principle holds. If training doesn\u2019t include strategies for retention or transfer to real life, it won\u2019t last.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A transfer problem, not a content problem<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Corporate training is a $340\u2013361 billion global industry. Yet according to ATD, learning hours per employee have dropped from 34 in 2020 to just 13.7 in most recent reports. At the same time, cost per hour has risen by 34%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We\u2019re spending more to do less. And what does get delivered often doesn\u2019t translate into action. Saks and Belcourt found that one year after training, only 34% of employees still apply what they learned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s not a learning issue. It\u2019s a transfer issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Knowing vs doing: why information isn\u2019t enough<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Organisations often equate learning with exposure to information. But Stanford researchers Pfeffer and Sutton describe a persistent \u201cknowing-doing gap\u201d: people may know what to do, but that doesn\u2019t mean they\u2019ll do it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s not laziness. It\u2019s biology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Declarative memory (facts, concepts) is stored in the hippocampus. Procedural memory (skills, habits) lives in other parts of the brain and forms through repetition and practice. You can\u2019t transfer behaviour with a PowerPoint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When people are overloaded with new concepts, their working memory gets clogged. There\u2019s no space left to make sense of the information, let alone apply it. Van Merri\u00ebnboer and Sweller\u2019s research shows that even realistic tasks can overwhelm novices unless carefully designed - it\u2019s called the cognitive overload effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What we ignore about adult learners<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Malcolm Knowles\u2019 research into adult learning tells us what many of us already know: adults learn best when it\u2019s practical, relevant, and connected to what they already do. But corporate training often violates these principles. It\u2019s imposed from a senior colleague, often abstract and it\u2019s usually disconnected from people\u2019s real work. The exact conditions the CDC suggests avoiding: \u201cAdult learners will resist learning when they feel others are imposing information, ideas, or actions on them.\u201d We need people to discover things themselves and with their co-workers. That\u2019s why our simulations<\/a> are always played with and against teams of colleagues - not computers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What actually works: active, experiential learning<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The evidence for active learning is strong. A meta-analysis by Freeman et al. covering 225 studies found it improves outcomes and cuts failure rates by more than 50%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Simulation-based learning takes this further.<\/a> A review by the AHRQ of over 600 studies found clear improvements in knowledge, behaviour, and outcomes. In aviation, simulation training has become essential for safety. Pilots don\u2019t practise on real planes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Business simulation research echoes this. Meta-analyses show simulations improve interpersonal skills and self-awareness, and when paired with reinforcement and follow-up, the impact increases significantly. Wilson Learning found this could boost effectiveness by 186%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Leaders are noticing that e-learns alone aren\u2019t cutting it. CIPD data shows alignment between L&D and business goals has dropped - from 77% in 2021 to 67% in 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A strategic opportunity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The forgetting curve is not inevitable. Spaced repetition and retrieval practice improve retention. But more importantly, lasting behaviour change depends on targeting the right memory systems, and designing learning that reflects how people actually learn<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Experiential, simulation-based training works not because it\u2019s trendy, but because it:<\/p>\n\n\n\n