What 17 Years in Workplace Development Taught Me About Learning That Actually Gets Results
The training industry has become fixated with buzzwords and ignored about actual humans.
Having worked in learning and development for the better part of two decades, and honestly? Half the stuff we’re selling these days would make my old supervisor laugh himself sick. When I first got into this industry, learning happened through mentorship and hands-on experience. Unstructured, sure. But it worked.
We’ve replaced actual learning with digital bureaucracy. It’s mental.
The awkward truth is that we’re solving the wrong problems with the wrong tools. I was at a client site last week where they needed a full day to explain a system that should take half an hour to learn. The facilitator kept banging on about “user experience optimization” whilst half the room couldn’t figure out how to unmute themselves.
The Real Problems Nobody Talks About
The amount of money lost on ineffective training in this country is staggering. I saw a statistic somewhere that puts global training spend at over $300 billion annually. That’s a massive number. Yet studies show people forget most of what they’re taught within days.
Spent time with a major mining operation in WA. Incredible workplace, the kind of safety culture every industry should strive for. But their mandatory compliance training? Absolute joke. Digital programs that became box-ticking exercises. Actual knowledge transfer occurred in relaxed conversations.
It became obvious that we’re focused on compliance rather than competence.
Manufacturing companies seem to understand learning differently. Seen operations where learning happens on the factory floor instead of conference rooms. There’s something wonderful about watching a kid figure out how to operate machinery under the supervision of someone who’s been doing it for decades.
Good luck convincing head office when they’ve spent six figures on digital platforms.
What Actually Works (And Why We Dismiss It)
Peer to peer learning destroys formal training every single time. The evidence is overwhelming across all sectors. Put someone who knows their stuff with someone who wants to learn, give them real work to do together, and magic happens.
Westpac has some brilliant mentoring programs running in their branches. Simple approach: seasoned employees guide newcomers through real situations. The results speak for themselves: better retention, faster skill development, higher job satisfaction. Simple stuff that works.
But companies keep choosing lecture format training that nobody remembers. Why? The metrics are easy. You can tick boxes, generate completion certificates, and show executives pretty charts about training hours delivered.
Meanwhile, the person who’s been fixing machinery for fifteen years retires without passing on half his knowledge because there’s no formal process for capturing it.
I made this mistake myself early on. Assumed I could build one size fits all programs. Invested ages creating what seemed like ideal orientation training. Fancy graphics, participation exercises, embarrassing pretend scenarios.
Total disaster.
Realised that everyone requires individual methods and support. Who would’ve thought?
EQ Training Mania
EQ development programs drive me mental. Most tender documents mention EQ requirements. As if emotional awareness comes from presentation software.
I’m not saying emotional intelligence isn’t valuable. Obviously it matters. But the way we’re approaching it in corporate training is backwards. EQ grows through real relationships and honest conversations. Not by completing online assessments that tell you whether you are a “red” or “blue” personality type.
Saw an organisation waste big cash on feelings workshops. Expensive consultant, flash location, comprehensive materials that gathered dust. Staff satisfaction remained unchanged. Turnover actually increased.
Know what would’ve made a difference? Teaching those managers how to have actual conversations with their people. How to listen without planning their response. How to admit when they don’t know something.
But that’s harder to package into a neat training module.
Technology’s False Promise
Digital learning companies promise that algorithms will fix everything. Customised curricula, smart content, bite sized lessons served when needed. Sounds brilliant in theory.
Truth is: these solutions address non existent issues while missing real challenges.
I watched a company implement a “smart” learning platform that was supposed to identify skill gaps and recommend relevant training. Cost them six figures and took eight months to deploy. The system recommended basic computer skills to experts while ignoring critical service deficiencies.
At the same time, top performers were running casual learning meetings over sandwiches. No technology required.
The real innovation in workplace learning isn’t coming from Silicon Valley startups. It’s coming from organisations that figure out how to create cultures where people actually want to share what they know.
Approaches That Get Success
Some companies are getting it right, though. Not many, but enough to give me hope.
Bunnings runs brilliant product education programs. Rather than classroom courses, vendors deliver practical workshops to employees. Real products, real questions, real problems. Employees develop skills to serve clients better, not to satisfy bureaucratic requirements.
Traditional apprenticeships mixing classroom learning with workplace experience outperform university style programs. TAFE courses that partner with industry employers create pathways that actually lead somewhere.
The pattern is always the same: learning connected to real work, guided by people who actually know what they’re doing, with immediate opportunities to apply new knowledge.
Still, organisations prefer traditional teaching methods because they’re known quantities.
What Nobody Wants to Hear About Training Satisfaction
Training providers won’t like this: happy participants don’t necessarily learn anything. I’ve run sessions where participants rated the experience highly but couldn’t demonstrate any behaviour change six months later. Provided development that seemed unpopular at first but revolutionised people’s job performance.
The best learning often feels uncomfortable because it challenges existing assumptions and requires people to change established habits. However, challenging sessions produce poor evaluation ratings, leading us to abandon them.
We’ve designed workplace training for participant satisfaction rather than actual learning outcomes. It’s like judging a gym by how much members enjoy their workouts rather than whether they get fitter.
The Way Forward
I don’t have neat solutions to these problems. Truth is, the entire industry is struggling with this. Workplace training emphasises processes and measurements rather than its core purpose: building useful capabilities.
Could be that enhanced modules aren’t the answer. It might involve establishing cultures where learning emerges naturally from work design and interpersonal dynamics.
Maybe we need fewer formal training modules and more opportunities for people to learn from each other whilst doing actual work that matters.
Maybe the best development happens when we stop trying to control every aspect of the learning process and start trusting people to figure things out with appropriate support.
Or maybe I’m just getting old and nostalgic for simpler times when learning meant watching someone who knew what they were doing and gradually getting better at it yourself.
Regardless, current approaches fail the majority of learners in most situations. Denying these problems won’t make them disappear.
If you have any inquiries pertaining to where and how to use Sydney Training Providers, you can call us at the web site.