Harold,

I think you make some great points but you're overstating the case. The research I've been involved with (I placed a link in below) indicates that training evaluations really are associated with better organizational performance. That makes sense. Large organizations may spend millions in any given year on formal training, and they absolutely should have more a "smile survey" to judge which training programs have the most positive impact.

The second point I'd make is that the 90% figure, which I've seen used many times for informal or experiential learning, is very soft indeed. The truth is that this figure is going to vary from organization to organization and even person to person. Moreover, it's often the most valuable and academically intense learning that is "trained." For example, it's unlikely that a programmer is going to "pick up" C++ programming through informal learning. There will usually be formal training or education modules involved because those are essential to learning the foundational knowledge that is critical to that position.

The third and last point I'd make is that "learning socially" can also be a mug's game, with experienced professionals wincing every time a neophyte walks in the door, thinking, "Oh jees, now I've got to spend the next few months teaching this kid the ropes and watching my own productivity go down the drain." In some cases, this kind of learning doesn't form bonds as much as it does resentments.

So, I'd be careful making blanket statements. My feeling is that, as long as formal training and development are an essential and expensive tool in some industries, professions and organizations, they should be evaluated in whatever ways make most sense. Otherwise, learning becomes like flying an airplane without any instrument panels: foolish and potentially very costly.