Redefining Training in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Training has always been my passion, which isn’t surprising for an instructional designer. We’re drawn to this profession because we love learning. But while our enthusiasm for building training plans and materials is genuine, it doesn’t always translate to the learner's experience. In fact, research by Bersin by Deloitte found that only 12% of employees apply the skills they learn in training to their jobs. This statistic reveals a significant gap between the intended outcomes of training and actual on-the-job performance.

I’ve spent considerable time pondering why training doesn’t stick. In my view, training should be a powerful tool for employee engagement and retention, with the potential to boost productivity and drive company growth—if done right.

Lately, there’s been a lot of buzz about using artificial intelligence to generate training content more quickly and efficiently, even to the extent of creating learning plans and objectives. But this raises an important question: Can we afford to dehumanize training to this extent? And will that really improve the effectiveness of training, or will it further disconnect employees from the learning process?

I believe there’s a crucial step missing in traditional training approaches—one that could significantly enhance the overall effectiveness of training programs. Typically, we establish the need for training through big data or decisions made at the leadership level. Once executive buy-in is secured, we dive into building the learning plan.

But what if we took a different approach? What if we involved employees from the very beginning? What if we sought their input during the needs assessment phase and asked the hard questions to truly understand what’s driving the performance gap or issue? What if the decision to train on a particular skill came from the employees themselves? Wouldn’t this approach foster a sense of ownership, trust, respect, and validation?

Here’s how we can involve employees in the learning and development process:

1. Identify the Root Cause: Start by engaging employees in discussions to identify the initial root cause of the need for training. What challenges are they facing in their daily tasks? What skills do they feel they lack? This step ensures that training addresses real, on-the-ground issues rather than perceived problems from a distance.
2. Clarify the Benefits: Clearly communicate the benefits of the proposed training to employees. How will it make their work easier or more fulfilling? Understanding the personal and professional gains from training can increase motivation and engagement.
3. Listen to Employee Priorities: Ask employees what they feel is most important for their development. What skills or knowledge do they value? What areas do they want to improve in? By aligning training content with employee priorities, we make learning more relevant and impactful.
4. Define Success Together: Collaboratively decide how to measure progress. How do employees want to track their own development? What metrics will reflect the progress of their team? When employees have a say in defining success, they are more likely to be committed to achieving it.
5. Continuous Feedback and Adjustment: Implement a feedback loop where employees can share their experiences during and after training. What’s working? What’s not? This continuous dialogue allows for adjustments that keep the training aligned with real needs and evolving challenges.

Jean Gomes, in his book Leading in a Non-Linear World, highlights the critical gap that often exists between the perspectives of executive teams and the experiences of employees on the ground. He argues that while executives tend to focus on broad organizational goals, they can sometimes overlook the nuanced challenges and insights that only employees can provide. This disconnect can lead to strategies that miss the mark or fail to address the real issues affecting performance.

Gomes stresses that involving employees in strategic planning and decision-making is not just beneficial—it’s essential for truly understanding the organization’s needs and leveraging its full potential. He emphasizes that the employee perspective brings a layer of context and reality that is often missing in decisions made solely at the top. By including employees in these processes, organizations can tap into a wealth of knowledge that is often underutilized, leading to more effective and human-centered strategies.

Isn’t this the first step toward building a more human-centered approach to training and, by extension, to our organizations?