Does L&D Have "Vanity Metrics"? Well....It Depends

I was at the ATD International Conference recently when I overheard a speaker call things like CSAT, NPS, training hours, and learning penetration “vanity metrics.” That hit me—are they really just fluff? Or do they actually matter?

Like most things in L&D… it depends.

At the end of the day, we’re an investment. If what we’re doing costs more than the outcomes we deliver, that’s a problem. So, when we point to a 97 CSAT, a 62 NPS, and 228 hours of training as “wins” without any impact tied to them—yeah, that’s just surface-level stuff. If another team logged that much time without results, it wouldn’t fly.

But these metrics can matter—if they’re part of a bigger story.

Here’s how:

Support success: If incidents dropped by 36% and learners had a great experience (high CSAT/NPS), that’s a signal your training likely played a role (and sharing the good vibes plus strong results is always a plus!)

Spot areas to improve: At a past job, we used CSAT/NPS to figure out which competencies didn’t stick. When we saw a dip in behavior change AND low feedback scores in a certain area, we knew where to adjust the program.

Bottom line? If you’re just reporting numbers to look good—yeah, they’re vanity metrics. But if you’re using them to improve and show real impact, they’re powerful tools.

What do you think? Drop a comment—I’d love to hear your take!