The Mortgage Factor: The Unspoken Challenge in Instructional Design

If you’ve spent any time in online forums, professional conferences, or social media spaces dedicated to learning and development, you’ve likely seen it: someone critiquing the instructional design work of others. Maybe it’s a comment about a lackluster eLearning course, a too-simple training video, or a program that doesn’t feel innovative enough. These critiques often focus on surface-level outcomes or missteps, but rarely do they consider the larger story—the critical context in which the design was created.

It’s not always an individual course or project being critiqued, though. Sometimes, it’s the entire field of instructional design that’s under fire. Whether it’s a blog post declaring that ID is stagnant, a LinkedIn post lamenting the lack of creativity in the industry, or a conference speaker calling for revolutionary change, these broad generalizations often stem from a similar place: judgment made in a vacuum. They focus on the outcomes without fully grappling with the context, constraints, and systemic pressures that shape instructional design as a practice.

This dynamic is one I’ve observed countless times, and it always gives me pause. As professionals, we’re quick to discuss what “should have been done” without knowing the challenges and constraints designers face. And I don’t think anyone ever really acknowledges one significant piece of context. I call this element The Mortgage Factor.

Personal Stakes, Professional Choices

The Mortgage Factor recognizes a fundamental truth: most of us work for employers who provide not only a paycheck but also the security of health insurance, retirement contributions, and, crucially, the ability to pay regular bills like a mortgage. This reliance on an employer creates constraints—constraints that influence how far an instructional designer can push against resistance, challenge entrenched norms, or advocate for innovation.

Every instructional designer operates within a web of expectations and boundaries set by their organization. These may include tight budgets, rigid timelines, stakeholder preferences, or pre-existing systems and tools. While many of us strive to create exceptional learning experiences, the reality is that our professional security depends on navigating these constraints effectively and in keeping our collective stakeholders happy. At times, that may require compromising on ideals or opting for “good enough” solutions rather than what we may feel is best.

And when someone critiques “the state of instructional design” as a whole, they often overlook the complex ecosystem in which our work exists. Instructional designers don’t operate independently of their environment. Our work reflects the priorities, cultures, and limitations of the organizations we serve. Sweeping judgments about individual work and the field as a whole often miss this critical nuance.

Balancing Risk and Reward

The Mortgage Factor doesn’t imply a lack of creativity or integrity—it’s about acknowledging the balancing act many professionals face. As an employee, you can only push so hard before your stakeholders may start to see you as a problem, which, depending on the stakeholder, could jeopardize your future career growth or even your job security. This dynamic often leads to decisions that are pragmatic rather than aspirational. And that’s okay.

Understanding this balance doesn’t absolve us of striving for quality or innovation, but it does provide a lens through which to view design decisions. For example:

• A training program might rely on an off-the-shelf solution instead of a custom-built one because the timeline didn’t allow for development from scratch.
• An eLearning course may prioritize compliance over engagement because regulatory requirements, not learning and performance outcomes, drove the stakeholder's goal.
• A simulation might be simplified due to limited access to technology, even if a more robust solution would have been ideal.

Similarly, when entire swaths of the industry are criticized, it’s worth asking: How much of what’s being critiqued reflects systemic barriers rather than individual failures? To blame instructional designers for systemic issues like lack of funding, unrealistic timelines, or low stakeholder buy-in may miss the larger story entirely.

Shifting the Conversation

Don’t get me wrong; I think critiques are essential. They can provide valuable feedback that identifies opportunities for improvement and growth. However, that feedback needs to be built on a foundation of understanding that extends beyond just the finished project.

As a field, we need to shift our conversation to prioritize empathy for the context of creation. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for better. It means we should critique with curiosity, not judgment:

• Instead of asking, “Why isn’t this training more interactive?” ask, “What constraints might have influenced these design decisions?”
• Instead of broad statements like, “Instructional design is stagnant,” ask, “What systemic factors make innovation in ID difficult, and how can we address them?”
• Instead of saying, “This doesn’t meet best practices,” ask, “What trade-offs were made, and why?”
• Instead of questioning the work’s validity, ask, “How does this design align with the organization’s goals and resources?”

Recognizing Our Shared Realities

Ultimately, The Mortgage Factor is about understanding that instructional designers—like everyone else—must balance their ID principles with the realities of their professional and personal lives. While we aim to deliver exceptional learning experiences, we also navigate a complex web of organizational politics, limited resources, and personal responsibilities.

When we replace judgment with curiosity, we open the door to conversations that inspire rather than discourage. Thoughtful critique grounded in empathy benefits everyone involved. Designers gain actionable insights framed within the realities they face, while critics deepen their understanding of the constraints that shape our field. By focusing on understanding rather than jumping to assumptions, we create opportunities for shared learning and collective improvement that extend well beyond the limits of the specific project being discussed.

Thanks for reading!

About David...

David Kelly constantly explores the convergence of learning and technology, demonstrating a profound commitment to transforming workplaces and enriching lives through innovative learning strategies. With over two decades of experience in learning and performance leadership and consulting, he brings his passion to life in his daily work building events and resources as Chairman of Learning Guild, and as a dynamic speaker and writer, inspiring others to view their work through a fresh, technology-enhanced lens.