It was Tuesday, 28 April 2026. Standing before a massive audience at the Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University, the Director-General of the Administrative Staff College of Nigeria (ASCON), Dr. Funke Femi Adepoju delivered a message that cut through decades of accepted practice in public-sector training. It was obvious that she did not come to flatter the system. She came to question it. Her lecture, “From Capacity Building to Reform Delivery: Reimagining Public-Sector Training Institutions,” was less of a routine academic presentation and more of a call to dismantle a comfortable but ineffective orthodoxy.
The core of her argument was a quiet but consequential truth: public-sector training, as currently designed in many countries including Nigeria, often failed to produce real change. Not because governments lacked commitment, nor because institutions were underfunded or poorly staffed, but because the system itself was oriented toward the wrong outcomes. Certificates were issued, workshops were attended, and reports were written, yet the underlying problems in governance remained stubbornly intact.
This critique resonates deeply with the Nigerian context, where public-sector training has long been seen as a cornerstone of administrative development. For decades, institutions organized courses that aimed at improving leadership qualities and roles, enhancing technical competence, and strengthening service delivery. Yet, despite these efforts, citizens frequently encounter the same inefficiencies, delays, and bureaucratic bottlenecks which training programmes are supposed to address. The gap between learning and impact has now become too wide to ignore.
Dr. Adepoju’s intervention is significant not only because of her public position but also because of her experience. With more than thirty years in the public service, much of it spent within the Lagos State civil service, she has witnessed firsthand both the promise and the limitations of institutional training. Her career trajectory, rising through the ranks to hold key leadership positions, has given her a practical understanding of how policies and programmes translate, or fail to translate, into results on the ground.
Her lecture identified three structural failures that explain why the traditional model struggles interminably to deliver reform. The first, which she captioned the “transfer illusion,” captures the persistent assumption that knowledge acquired in the classroom could automatically translate into improved performance in the workplace. In reality, the conditions necessary for such transfer like supportive leadership, enabling systems, and clear incentives are often absent. Civil servants return from training programmes inspired and equipped with new ideas, only to find themselves constrained by institutional inertia and outdated procedures.
The second failure, the “competency trap,” reflects the tendency to adopt some sort of standardized frameworks that may not align with local realities. Training curricula are frequently designed around global best practices, which, while valuable, can become disconnected from the specific challenges that are faced by institutions. In Nigeria, for instance, the complexities of federalism, resource constraints, and socio-political dynamics require context-sensitive approaches. When training fails to address these nuances, it risks producing competence in theory but not in practice. The third failure, the “delivery illusion,” may be the most pervasive. Training institutions often measure success in terms of outputs like how many participants attended a programme, how many certificates were issued, how many workshops were conducted. These metrics are easy to track and report, but they say little about whether any meaningful change occurred. That the system records a thousand trained officers does not necessarily translate into a single improved public service outcome.
What makes Dr. Adepoju’s critique compelling is that it does not stop at diagnosis. She offers an alternative framework, one that seeks to reorient the purpose of training itself. The R.I.S.E. Framework – Reform, Inspired, Systems, Execution – represents a shift from viewing training as an isolated activity to seeing it as an integral component of governance reform. Under this model, training programmes must be anchored on specific, measurable reform priorities. Instead of generic courses on leadership or management, participants would engage in learning which directly addresses identified institutional challenges. A programme on procurement, for example, would be tied to reducing delays in contract approvals or improving transparency in bidding processes. The success of the programme would then be measured not by attendance but by progress on these targets.
Equally important is the emphasis on inspiration and ethos. Public service, Dr. Adepoju argues, is not merely a technical endeavour, it is also a moral one. Training must therefore cultivate a sense of purpose and commitment to citizens. This dimension is particularly relevant in Nigeria, where public trust in government institutions has often been eroded by series of unfulfilled promises to the citizens. Rebuilding that trust requires more than technical competence: it demands a renewed dedication to service.
The “systems” component of the framework highlights the role of technology and data in bridging the gap between learning and action. Digital tools can be used to track the implementation of reforms, monitor progress, and provide real-time feedback. This approach introduces a level of accountability that is often missing in traditional training models. Participants are not only expected to learn but also to demonstrate how that learning translates into tangible outcomes.
Finally, the focus on execution highlights the need for sustained engagement beyond the classroom. Training should not end when participants receive their certificates. Instead, it should be followed up by structured commitments, mentoring, and performance tracking. This continuity ensures that learning becomes embedded in institutional practice rather than fading away once the programme concludes.
The implications of this approach are far-reaching. For governments, it means rethinking how resources are allocated to training and how success is measured. For training institutions, it requires a fundamental redesign of programmes, curricula, and evaluation methods. For development partners, it calls for a shift from funding activities to supporting outcomes.
In Nigeria, where public-sector reform has been a recurring theme in policy discourse, the R.I.S.E. Framework offers a practical pathway for translating ambition into action. The country has invested heavily in capacity building over the years, yet the results have often fallen short of expectations. By aligning training with reform priorities and holding institutions accountable for outcomes, there is an opportunity to achieve more meaningful and sustained improvements.
Dr. Adepoju’s message also challenges long-standing assumptions about the role of institutions like the Administrative Staff College of Nigeria. Traditionally seen as centres for professional development, such institutions are now being called upon to act as catalysts for reform. This shift requires not only new strategies but also a change in mindset. Training providers must see themselves not as educators alone but as partners in governance transformation.
Her appointment as Director-General in 2025 signaled a commitment to bringing fresh perspectives to public-sector training. Since taking office, she has emphasized leadership development, administrative efficiency, and digital transformation. Her lecture at Oxford can be seen as an extension of this agenda, positioning Nigeria at the forefront of a global conversation about the future of public administration.
The international dimension of her research adds further weight to her arguments. By examining institutions in countries as diverse as Brazil, Nepal, Indonesia, Kenya, South Africa, and Singapore, she demonstrates that the challenges she identifies are not unique to Nigeria. Across different contexts, training institutions face similar pressures and limitations. This shared experience suggests that the need for reform is both urgent and universal. Yet, while the challenges are common, the solutions must be tailored to local realities. Nigeria’s public sector operates within a complex environment shaped by historical, political, and economic factors. Any effort to reimagine training must take these dynamics into account. The R.I.S.E. Framework, with its emphasis on context-specific reform priorities, provides a flexible approach that can be adapted to different settings.
There is also a broader lesson in Dr. Adepoju’s approach. By framing training as the “entry point of reform,” she shifts the narrative from one of incremental improvement to one of transformative change. This perspective recognizes that building capacity is not an end in itself but a means to achieving better outcomes for citizens. It challenges policymakers and practitioners to think beyond traditional metrics and focus on what truly matters. The response to her lecture suggests that this message is gaining traction. As governments grapple with increasing demands for efficiency, transparency, and accountability, the limitations of existing training models are becoming more apparent. There is a growing recognition that new approaches are needed, approaches that link learning directly to results.
For Nigeria, this moment presents both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge lies in moving beyond entrenched practices and embracing a more outcome-oriented approach to training. The opportunity lies in leveraging this shift to drive meaningful improvements in governance and service delivery. Dr. Adepoju’s call to action is clear. Governments, training institutions, development partners, and public-sector leaders must work together to redefine the purpose of training. They must move from counting certificates to measuring reform, from organizing workshops to delivering results, and from teaching concepts to solving problems.
This is not a simple task. It requires sustained commitment, institutional courage, and a willingness to experiment with new ideas. It also demands a level of accountability that may be uncomfortable for some. But the potential rewards of more effective institutions, improved public services, and greater trust in government are too significant to ignore. At the end of the day, the question is not whether public-sector training should change, but how quickly it can do so. Dr. Adepoju has provided both a critique of the current model and a roadmap for its transformation. The responsibility now lies with those who shape and implement policy to turn these ideas into reality. If her vision is realized, the impact could extend far beyond Nigeria. It could redefine how governments around the world approach training, shifting the focus from activity to impact and from learning to delivery. In doing so, it would fulfill the promise that has long been associated with public-sector training: not just to build capacity, but to create change.
Chief Sir Asinugo, PhD., M.A., KSC, is a UK-based veteran journalist and author.
