The Convenient Narrative

Over the last few weeks, I've noticed something. A vendor, consultant, etc., posts something in the L&D space, someone asks a question or makes a point that is not part of the poster's narrative and often there's nothing but ... crickets.

When vendors and consultants post without engaging meaningfully, it reduces L&D discussions to marketing exercises rather than professional exchanges. This undermines the field by replacing genuine insight with surface-level narratives, shifting the focus from advancing impactful solutions to simply driving sales.

This experience isn’t unique to one platform or post—it’s a pervasive issue that undermines the credibility of our industry. Yet, the hyperbole of today’s trends often outpaces real impact. So, what’s going on here? If you are going to post something, then embrace those that ask you to consider more or different.

For example: A vendor claiming the list above are the set of skills needed for the AI future. He's not wrong, but this is similar to me saying an automobile should have tires, a gas tank and an engine. Just like skills, each one of these necessities varies by the expected work output of the car, which is why you don't see a Ferrari towing livestock down the road.

Or the vendor who says their technology will help you identify up to 90% of the skills for an occupation. I tried it and here's what I got.

Not bad. These are some possible categories of skills for this role on this machine, but they are a conversation starter. In other words, I need the real experts to tell me if these are correct and then we start identifying the specific skills and performance needed for these and other categories.

To be clear, I don't know either one of these individuals well and I don't use their products or service so I cannot speak to their intentions. What concerns me is we see these examples almost daily, very broad, all-encompassing statements that are intended to get your interest, but are short on the details. Which reminds me that...

We are not in this together...and that's okay

Corporate learning and development vendors present themselves as partners in the pursuit of continuous learning and performance improvement. However, their priorities and business models often diverge from those of what organizations need to achieve these goals.

Vendors tend to focus on selling scalable solutions, such as AI-driven content creation tools, learning operations software, or skills platforms rather than addressing the nuanced, contextual, relevant, specific challenges that organizations face; it's probably why they always ask to learn more about our work.

What's the disconnect you ask? The disconnect is that these functions represent only a small fraction of what drives meaningful improvement in the workplace, and they live outside of the employee workflow. Continuous learning happens primarily on the job, through performance support, peer coaching, and real-world application in the workflow so you might as well use the same tools and tech the employees are using as one vendor who literally made this case for using MS Teams and Slack as he shared how his technology was integrated and delivered across these platforms.

Instead of addressing these critical elements, many vendors promote buzzwords like "future-proof skills, meet learners where they are with science backed courses. or simplify learning operations." offering surface-level narratives that obscure the complexity of real-world performance challenges.

Some have even gone so far as the connect their products or services with industry heavyweights as a means to promote their desirability, neglecting the feasibility or viability of their products or services.

Moreover, vendors frequently measure their success using engagement metrics or course completions, rather than aligning with business outcomes such as increased productivity, reduced errors, retention, engagement, etc. This focus on delivering marketable features over measurable results reveals a fundamental misalignment between vendors’ priorities and the needs of organizations striving for sustained improvement.

This may sound harsh as most of L&D generally promotes a connected and supporting environment which I do appreciate, but when vendors, influencers and the like promote something that doesn’t align with improving performance or addressing real business needs, it becomes clear that we are not all working toward the same goals and frankly, we've been having too many of the same discussions, accepting the same statements and chasing the same shiny objects for too long.

Ultimately, L&D professionals should focus on initiatives that matter to the business which often includes improving performance and driving capability. To help you navigate the convenient narrative, here's my .02 cents worth of thoughts regarding things to look for in the promotion.

Buzzwords Without Substance

While buzzwords catch attention, they often fail to answer the more pressing question: How will this actually improve work performance or business outcomes? Does the vendor have a client or two who will tell the entire details of the story and not just the part that supports the product or service?

Avoiding Engagement with Real Questions

Another telling pattern: when an L&D professional comments with a challenging question or a practical concern, and the response is minimal, a distraction, opinion, unsupported, or absent. This behavior raises the question: Is the vendor committed to real dialogue, or are they more focused on pushing a particular message?

Universal Claims That Ignore Context

Many vendors promote one-size-fits-all solutions, ignoring industry-specific realities. For example, a method that might work in a tech-forward environment may not translate to manufacturing or healthcare. By making sweeping claims without acknowledging these nuances, vendors are essentially telling a story that’s convenient for selling a product but lacks the credibility that comes with addressing the unique needs of varied industries.

Questionable Sources and Ethical Concerns

When a cited source has been fined, faced ethical challenges, is not repeatable, is not peer reviewed, has not been tested across different contexts or industries, or the source of this research has a vested interest in the conclusions, it raises red flags about the reliability of the findings.

These sources publish research that aligns with their business goals, rather than delivering unbiased insights. Convenient narratives come at a cost. When vendors and consultants sell these oversimplified stories, they often leave us with half-baked solutions that don’t meet actual needs. This approach diverts resources, time, and energy away from impactful initiatives, creating disillusionment among L&D professionals and learners alike.

Good Intentions are not Transparent Intentions

Do I believe the vendors behind these examples had bad intentions? No. Most likely, they genuinely believe in the value of their offerings. But good intentions don’t equate to transparent intentions. Vendors and consultants need to be upfront about the limitations of their solutions, the contexts in which they work best, and the details required for informed decision-making. And we need to be asking these questions if they are not.

Here's a great transparency example from Business Insider; Companies are struggling to teach employees how to do their jobs. Christy Pettit, the CEO of Pollinate Networks, which creates mentoring software, told me she recently spoke with a large multinational that told her despite having 2,000 licenses for the mentoring program, which was mainly an app, fewer than 200 people were using it and participation was declining every quarter.

As professionals, we owe it to our field to demand better or else we're still going to taking about the same issues 20 years from now. Let’s put an end to convenient narratives before they become conventional wisdom.

As I said to one vendor, I'll take a hard look at your product if you send me the contact information of two of your clients who would be willing to share with me how they improved performance and business results and what percent your product played in that accomplishment. It's been four weeks of crickets.

Folks, I'm an old, grumpy L&Der. I own my fair share of the blame for using technology and developing solutions that did little to improve performance and business results. I'm trying to spend the rest of my working days helping the next generations not make those errors. Thanks for reading, until next time...