Training for training's sake
Who is really at fault when employees try to shortcut the system
A recent HR Grapevine article highlighted once again the common pitfall in corporate learning and development: training for the sake of training. EY, one of the big five, runs an annual ‘Ignite learning week’, which encourages employees to join as many sessions being delivered as possible. From the outside in, it looks like this is an opportunity to learn and share across the business, but according to the article employees were expected to complete 40 hours of CPD (or equivalent) - making it a mandatory training opportunity, not an opt-in-as-and-when approach.
Former EY employees reported being penalised for completing multiple training courses simultaneously, sparking a conversation about the purpose and value of L&D programs. For L&D teams, this incident serves as a stark reminder of the need for training to be tied to real, meaningful challenges rather than simply fulfilling a checklist of required courses.
We know that many employees are so often bombarded with training requirements, many of which lack clear alignment with job challenges or personal growth goals. This approach can lead to frustration, disengagement, and, as in the EY case, unintended consequences when employees take matters into their own hands to "get through" the training as quickly as possible. The irony here is clear: in a system where training is meant to foster growth and learning, it instead becomes a box-ticking exercise. It’s a horrible record to keep playing.
There’s a couple of things to pick up on here: the importance of unambiguous communication, but also the perceived usefulness of training in the eye of the one completing it.
Lesson 1 for L&D: Focus on problem-centred opportunities
The EY story underscores an essential lesson for L&D professionals: training should be about solving meaningful problems, not merely creating content. So I’m taking it back to basics and sharing some takeaways to ensure that training is engaging, relevant, and impactful.
Define the Purpose Before Launching Courses
Every course should be created with a clear purpose, directly tied to real challenges employees face. Training that is explicitly designed to address actual skills gaps or operational pain points is far more likely to resonate and be put into practice. Returning to the ‘what’s in it for me?’ question is always the priority here.
Prioritise quality over quantity
Overloading employees with course after course risks creating disengagement rather than development. L&D teams should aim for curated learning journeys that focus on key skills and competencies that matter most in the workplace. This approach also reduces the temptation for employees to rush through training simply to "get it done."
Encourage learner autonomy through choice and flexibility
Employees value the ability to choose learning paths that align with their personal career goals and current job needs. Offering flexibility—such as letting employees select from a range of courses or choose the timing for completion—makes it less likely that they’ll feel overwhelmed by mandatory training sessions.
Recommended by LinkedIn
Measure training impact on real outcomes
L&D teams must measure the effectiveness of their programs not by course completion rates but by observable changes in performance and behaviour. This shift in measurement requires collaboration with line managers to see if training has genuinely helped employees tackle specific issues.
Cultivate a culture of curiosity, not compliance
When training is about compliance alone, employees lose sight of the why behind learning initiatives. Instead, fostering a culture of curiosity, where employees understand that learning is for their growth rather than simply meeting requirements, can transform the experience. Leaders and managers play a critical role here, encouraging employees to view training as an opportunity to enhance their capabilities.
Lesson 2 for L&D: Pay attention to how you market and communicate opportunities
Another lesson from the EY story is the critical need for clear and unambiguous communication surrounding training requirements. Ambiguities in communication can lead to confusion, disengagement, and even punitive actions, as seen in this case.
L&D teams must ensure that employees understand not only what is required but why it’s important, how it connects to their roles, and what constitutes acceptable completion. Providing detailed guidelines, transparent policies, and accessible channels for clarification allows employees to engage confidently with their learning paths. This clarity can prevent misunderstandings, foster trust, and ultimately contribute to a healthier learning culture where employees feel empowered rather than penalised. To do this, L&D teams should consider:
By actively thinking about these things, L&D teams can begin to ensure that employees have the information they need to approach training confidently, reducing confusion and fostering a more proactive, engaged learning culture.
Next stop: designing learning for real impact
For L&D teams, the lesson from EY’s situation is clear. Training should not be a conveyor belt of content; it should be a targeted, intentional process aimed at solving real-world problems and empowering employees to succeed. Creating this shift requires a rethink in how we design, deliver, and measure learning interventions. But it also requires a re-think in terms of how they are marketed and communicated to people internally, too.
When learning is grounded in purpose, relevance, and real-world application, both employees and organisations benefit. L&D teams have the opportunity—and responsibility—to create training that is not only engaging but genuinely transformative.
Get in touch to see how Thrive can help you achieve wild engagement and targeted comms across your business.
Human centric organizational performance
1moI think this is an over analysis of the situation. Sounds like everyone just left their CPD to the last minute. Better management of those hours across the year would solve the problem rather than everyone leaving it to the deadline. The new system required you to identify and have sign off of your on the job hours too, in my experience this is the part that needs real time management so you aren’t left struggling to complete your 40 hours in the last month of the deadline.