From Assessment to Action:
Learning Needs Analysis at Scale

A light development center (DC) for 92 Store Managers at a large jewelry retailer enabled a more targeted brief for an already planned learning intervention.

Process discipline& complianceEntrepreneurialMindsetData & DigitalSavvyOwnership &AccountabilityConsultativeSellingDelegationFeedback &CoachingServiceExcellence 8 indicators · scale shown from 1 (centre) to 3 of 5

Why the competency profile comes first

Effective learning starts with an accurate picture of current capability. Most learning needs analysis (LNA) for large cohorts relies on nominations, self-ratings or performance scores. These reflect visibility, confidence or outcomes rather than the behaviors behind them, so programs end up generic.

A competency profile built from structured assessment adds three things:

  • Precision:

    each competency is broken into observable behaviors, so a workshop can target the exact point where capability drops off.

  • Prioritization:

    group data separates cohort-wide gaps (core program) from gaps in a subset (targeted support).

  • Design:

    comparing what people know with what they do shows whether the need is knowledge, practice or on-the-job reinforcement.

The engagement

A leading jewellery retailer asked us to assess 92 store managers across four zones, ahead of planned workshops on its four role-specific competencies: Business Acumen, Customer Centricity, Operational Excellence and People Leadership. Each competency had two indicators.

Participants completed three exercises in two hours: a situational judgement test (what they know), a one-to-one roleplay with a team member (what they do), and a scenario-based video presentation (how they reason about the business). Assessors scored 24 behaviors on a 1–5 scale, with 2 or below treated as a development area. The methods measured genuinely different things: roleplay and presentation scores barely correlated (r = 0.06).

What the data revealed

The cohort averaged 2.39 out of 5. The value lay in where scores fell.

IndicatorMean% scoring 2 or belowJudgement (SJT)Roleplay
Process discipline & compliance 2.12 67% 2.74 1.64
Entrepreneurial Mindset 2.16 64% — 1.89
Data & Digital Savvy 2.27 50% — 1.97
Ownership & Accountability 2.46 36% 2.89 2.70
Consultative Selling 2.47 32% 2.62 2.87
Delegation 2.53 38% 2.48 2.46
Feedback & Coaching 2.54 40% 3.26 2.41
Service Excellence 2.57 27% 2.85 2.87
What the data revealed

Knowing outruns doing.

Judgement scores were often well above live behavior, by over a point on Process discipline (2.74 vs 1.64).

Judgement (SJT) vs Roleplay

Follow-through and business framing are the sharpest gaps. Setting a review mechanism for agreed commitments scored 1.64; explaining why a new opportunity matters to the store scored 1.74.

Managers take over rather than delegate. Only 3% chose to brief a newer team member, let her lead a high-value sale and review afterwards; 52% chose to handle it themselves.

Need is uneven. 20% of managers had no development area at competency level, while 14% had one on all four. The South zone averaged 2.20 against 2.56 in the North.

From insight to learning needs analysis

WorkshopRecommended focus
Business AcumenFraming the store business case; turning numbers into a short pitch to the team
Operational ExcellenceLess rule explanation; drills on setting review points, owners and dates
People LeadershipBriefing, stepping back and reviewing, so delegation becomes development
Customer CentricityShorter; questioning needs before recommending a piece

The Program design was modified further basis the DC inputs. Workshop design was adapted to be more practice-heavy than concept-heavy with more on-the-job scenarios built in. Follow-up assignments were created post each workshop to ensure sufficient skill practice for participants. Content was simplified with an “advanced” cohort planned for high-performing participants.

Lessons for large cohorts

  1. Measure behaviors, not just competencies: the data showed the issue was follow-through, not rule knowledge.

  2. Use more than one method: judgement tests alone would have overstated capability.

  3. Look at the spread: an average of 2.39 hid both ready-made peer coaches and managers needing intensive support.

The result is a learning plan built on evidence, targeted to real gaps, and measurable when the same behaviours are assessed again.