When did employees and customers for learning/training become irrelevant?

Let me pose this scenario to you.

You need to see your doctor. You have an appointment to see them. It’s been confirmed. You get there, you check in, and you pay any fees required. You sit down and wait. And wait. And wait. Finally, you are ready to be seen by your doctor. The desk person asks to see you. There is a slight problem. 

Your doctor is not there today. You can’t believe it, but are there any other doctors available to see me, you say? They say, let us check. They respond that there are no other doctors available. You seemed surprised. What? Oh, does this mean they are all booked? I have this appointment, and nobody told me that so-so wasn’t’ here. The front desk responds, “We mean that the company that owns our office laid off all the doctors.” When you ask? “This morning.” You are shocked. “How could this be, you think? How can a company lay off all the doctors?” ”Are there any PAs who can see you? “Nope. They are gone, too.” 

What about a nurse? I mean, I will take what I can get in the meantime. “Nope, they reply, they are gone too.” Now you are getting perturbed. “How can there be nobody medical here? Who am I supposed to see?” Well, they respond, you have two options. You can either leave OR you can see the billing officer.” ”The billing officer? Do they have any medical expertise?” ”No, they reply. But they are available, and because they are experienced in reading bills, I am sure they can read a medical book and figure it out.” You leave.

Does this scenario happen where every doctor in a doctor’s office owned by a company is laid off, and you can’t see anyone with zero medical background or expertise? No. And yet, companies repeatedly will lay off the head of L&D, the head of Training, and often the staff in L&D or Training. If you provide customer training, those folks in Training typically get laid off, too.

Nobody considers the above scenario, the downsizing or complete eradication of the L&D department, Training (internal), or Training (external), as something that isn’t so bad. I mean bad for the people – “restructuring, they call it.” Yet, those higher-up, the C-level folks, disagree. It is cost-cutting to them. 

But at what cost?

Employee Development

Sounds so good on paper or verbally presented, when they hire you to run L&D or Training (internal – employees). They, your boss says, are committed to providing learning and training to their employees.

They want you to do whatever is necessary to make that happen. They tell you they want online learning (or imply they want some form of online training, because it is needed). They want ILT (ugh). Maybe some OJT (sometimes ugh). They want all this stuff, and again, the company is committed to learning and training their employees – from the office right down to the manufacturing plant or retail locations or whatever.

After all, that is why they hired you. Maybe you need to hire others – additional resources. Maybe they already exist (at whatever level; if not, you can lay them off and get someone else). Perhaps it is just you (and it does happen even in larger companies). Regardless, the finances are there to get it right, because the company believes in training their employees – and the company presses this message to all employees.

Employee Development. Your boss wants some leadership development, too. And they hired you because they want an LMS or whatever they call those things – a learning system, they might say. Again, get it done; there is a budget item there. 

Workforce Development

I once had a CEO who espoused the message of learning and training for all employees. She messaged it numerous times, even to the VPs and Directors. They hired me to do so (and externally, but that is another story). I was given free rein.

Perfect. Fast Forward. In a briefing to her, I noted the courses I included and mentioned that they would be available to all employees, including executive assistants and front-facing staff. She responded, “Why?” I explained my reasons – benefits to the employees. Her retort? “They don’t need it. They are ‘secretaries’.”

I never forgot that. And that response has been with me for more than 15 years. 

I bring this up because perhaps you have run into a similar situation regarding workforce development. Not for everyone. You can fight it as much as you want, but the CEO, COO (whom I reported to at many companies), and other higher-ups you report to do not see it that way. And you can’t say anything about it.

And that is one problem in this whole thing – I thought they were employees. Plus, I am buying this learning system for all employees (whether you are rolling it out to a small group, or specific departments, or just for compliance). Perhaps at your company, the goal of the learning system is only compliance and leadership development. Thus, all employees receive the compliance part (worst idea ever. Why even buy a system, then? Just give them the book.”

You need to create courses; thus, you may purchase a 3rd party authoring tool you have experience with, or if the company already has one, use that – although there are plenty of folks I know at that high role of purchasing, that if they do not use that tool, they buy the one they want. Maybe you have been hired but lack any knowledge of what 3rd party tool to purchase. Or you lack the budget to do so, so you purchase the learning system with a built-in content creator (the term I use rather than the old-school authoring tool term). And you use that, along with PowerPoint (UGH). 

You may come with an instructional design background OR at least understand ADDIE to create your online courses and even ILT (which was what ADDIE was designed for, along with those rotten and worthless manuals nobody reads). You may be one of the few folks left in our L&D and Training areas who know the ins and outs of Kirkpatrick. OR, in rare circumstances, Gagne (which aligns nicely, BTW, with online learning – content, even webinars). 

In other words, you have extensive knowledge of learning and development OR Training. This is your forte. You are the expert here. 

Note: At some companies, HR oversees onboarding, and Training oversees external only. Again, company size doesn’t matter. Heck, there are companies where Marketing oversees external training (another horrible idea, more later).

For people in the L&D side of the house, whether you are under HR (yuck, but very common) or all by yourselves and not under the HR tree (better route to go) or internal Training, under HR (doubt yuck) or ideally on your own within the company structure (ideal route to go) OR you are under IT, but provide training to the entire company (it does happen, and it can be fine, depending on who is running IT – i.e. the CTO – you want one that says do what you need to do, and your boss says the same thing – it isn’t just a dream – I had it once – it was fantastic).

Let’s, though, go back to the more common route for L&D, being under HR (no offense to HR, but anyone in L&D and Training knows the old saying – “nobody wants to work under HR.”)

In L&D (the more common folks here, for workforce development), the areas you oversee include (but not limited to)

• Onboarding
• Leadership Development
• Compliance
• Ongoing training for employees – skill development, job role development tied to skills
• Manager training – which some companies see differently than leadership development
• Frontline/deskless and/or blue-collar training
• Technical training (slides under employees, but some companies place it away from the entire angle – I’m referring to networking and higher-end stuff, not MS365)
• Sales Training (sometimes it is overseen by whoever oversees Sales; other times, it slides under L&D since it is employees – albeit a specific group. And again, this isn’t always common. I tend to find that Technical, Sales, and the others above can slide under a Training department (internal). BTW, some companies have both an L&D and Training department. And they do not talk to one another and want different things. That’s a special relationship, and I pity (not really) the learning system and tech vendor who has to experience it. Have fun!)

That is a lot of learning and training across the company, regardless of the size of the company. Onboarding is crucial. Leadership development is important – at some companies (although only some get that opportunity even if they want it, which is its downside). Compliance is a requirement (even if it is more of a CYA angle for the company, and for employees, it is always last when employees take it – even management. And they go only once – because it is required and boring at the same time).

Ongoing training and learning for the employees is crucial. Skill development, the infamous upskilling with job roles or just skills itself, is the crux of today’s learning and training (internal, and now, in some use cases, external).

It can be solved with a learning system and online content. In other words, what we refer to as e-learning (content creator tools aka authoring tools, and any learning tech, slides under e-learning BTW).

In contrast, others may say a learning system with blended learning (sliding ILT under there. I consider online content to include webinars).

I want you to look at all that. Start at it. If you are a CEO reading this (and plenty do) or a board member of the company (and plenty do as well), look at it. 

Your entire workforce. Trained by one entity at your company, with the experts to do it.

With generative AI – training will be beyond crucial. Employees will need to know the ins and outs, not the technical side, but how to use it effectively, and in ways that do not impact the company negatively (that will happen). That productivity boost? How is that going to work without L&D or Training providing online courses, ILT (boo) overseeing that? You need have the experts (in learning and training) here – the person overseeing L&D or Training (internal) or both if they are at the same company.

So long Workforce Development, Hello? Hello?

The reality today, or any that goes through economic turmoil, whether real or perceived (the post-pandemic side is playing a role here, With folks having to scale up quickly, ignoring various factors), L&D and Training are the first departments to get gutted (HR and Marketing, with Sales, are clumped in there too).

If you provided learning or training during the 2008-12 recession, which went into 2014, you know what I am referring to. If you were doing it, at whatever level, during the dot.com days, you know what I am referencing here.

If you were experiencing it back in the 91-93 side, why did you think those UHF bogus channels would work? And what was with some people still using rabbit ears – and do you tell people you went into the woods to get them OR, worse, payback to the Easter bunny?

If you were doing this, not the Easter Bunny thing, but overseeing L&D or Training, or being in either department prior to 91, just think, retirement is right around the corner (I kid, I kid). Seriously though, what was it like before using a microwave?

It’s hard to do any of those items way up there without an expert overseeing it. Where does it go when the head of L&D or Training, and their staff is removed or down to a couple of people – if prior to, a lot more people, but those that lack your knowledge and expertise, which is why you were running it in the first place.

I know.

• HRIS – Who doesn’t know anything about learning whatsoever. And that learning system? Huh? Do you have to create content? What is that tool that does that? Can I write text in there? Here is a manual. Oh, I’ll buy some content/courses – do we have a budget for that? I have no idea what I am supposed to do because, fortunately, I still have my job, which is specific to overseeing/running HRIS.
•  HR – Hoping they know learning – very rare. Training? Did you read the previous sentence? Oh, this department has been downsized, too. Get the benefits person. What? Were they laid off? What about recruiting? Gone? Well, what is this ChatGPT thing? This should work. It is perfect (unaware that hallucinations and bias exist).
•  Marketing – Forget about it. I have never met a CMO, let alone whoever oversees marketing or staff, who knows anything about learning and training – besides taking it.
•  Sales – The typical person who oversees sales training in that department has a strong background and success in sales, not with learning principles or knowledge of learning styles/preferences and nothing about e-learning or adult learning. Oh, that department is going to be gutted, too.

Hey, let’s throw it to IT.
After all, that LMS, LXP, or whatever we have (learning system) is technical, and since they selected and used an ERP, it has to be the same thing. Right? Ignoring that they are experts in networking and other IT-related areas but do not have training or learning backgrounds.

Great. Nothing says employee development more than tossing it to folks with zero background in L&D or Training. Maybe they trained people – using the content created by Training or L&D, whether it is online – preferred and more effective or ILT (not as effective).

Sure, the workforce is going to drop too – across the board in any downsizing angle, but even if they are not hit as bad, that L&D and/Training and, yes, HR will (for those who are fine having HR with zero expertise in Learning Dev and Training, taking control). What I find today is the push to have HRIS oversee the learning system and create courses. HRIS people are experts in HRIS. They are not experts in learning development or training.

Plus, I have even seen HR departments where the person or people actively involved with HRIS, especially the head of that area, getting laid off too.

No worries, Steve over in accounting isn’t doing anything. Just have him take control.

Customer Training/Clients/Partners/Distributors/B2B and in some cases B2C

I will be blunt here. Why is this slid under Marketing? Who seriously thinks marketing knows anything about the principles of training, the most effective means of training, and how to create effective and engaging course content, let alone any content that impacts and is measurable to your customers, partners, etc.?
Can they look at the data and understand the learning intelligence before them? If the system has an e-commerce piece, do they know everything needed? Do they understand the process of what features are required?

Do they understand that many vendors who pitch an LXP don’t have one? Have they spent any time training people on-site, understanding adult learning to leverage it? Do they know trends to identify what content is selling, why it is selling (a key factor), and how to generate more money based on that data? Ignore business intelligence here because learning intelligence is more relevant.

And I’m not even going much further. I know folks who oversee training for external audiences; they do not know all the effective ways to generate money and look for trends, let alone tap into learning intelligence based on what the system’s metrics show – some do views – which is worthless and a lot lack any financial data of relevance, tied to the content – BTW.

If your system can dive further into the course with a TOC, does marketing understand why it is relevant for people (using longitudinal trend lines) to determine what is successful and what is not in the course? Or do they make all their customers go right first into the beginning? Are they telling clients that they must complete the content? (Worthless, if I only want to learn to do X of your product, why must I go through the entire course? Waste of time)

I’ve seen people who oversee training for external audiences do this – worthless and irritating. Even if you are giving the content away for free – marketing people – you still need to understand the learning metrics aspect, adult learning – WIFM, and scenarios around learning structure to deliver winning content.

The system you buy has to look slick. These folks – your customer base – are expecting that. Archaic or dated UI doesn’t’ benefit you. Never.
Marketing overseeing external audiences for training – even partners/distributors- is one of the worst ideas since the days of a company that sold cereal as a snack (yes, it happened in the 90s) or Crystal Pepsi.

The folks that are taking those courses/content in the learning system and whom you are creating the content (which you would need to do for your product/service are clients/distributors/partners/franchisees – and any entity that either sells content OR gives it away for free).
And there are a lot of companies that send external training over to marketing. The problem beyond what I just posted is that when it comes to downsizing, marketing is one of the impacted departments, and not in a good way.

What do you do then? You – the company has gotten rid of the training department – the head of training is usually the first to go. HR has been gutted. HR would not be the people to do external training. If you also have L&D, they have been gutted. Again, L&D is ideal for internal; it is rare to find a person with that background doing external (there are folks that do, but it is less than 10%. The majority are folks with a background in training – 90%).

Who gets to do that externally? Because you are selling it or providing it as a benefit to your customers, it becomes a profit center (if the person overseeing it knows how to do that). Your customers expect ongoing training. In return, they utilize your product or service more. You want that ARR or repeat customer to purchase other products or services if you are doing B2C.

If you provide training externally to your clients, you want to upsell them to purchase more of whatever you sell. You do not want to look like you have financial issues or need to restructure because you are worried or concerned about the economic state of the market – country-based only or globally.
Nothing says, “Uh oh,” than going from providing training on your product and service to stopping it.

Bottom Line

What is your objective when you decide to downsize your L&D or Training department as a company? Cost is the main component of it, but how will handle the employee development after that? Or, more importantly, will you?

If your company, business, or organization is adding AI (which is generative AI here), you will need someone with a background in either learning or training to train your employees well. The impact of not knowing right from fake information isn’t something to toy with, nor assume it won’t happen to you.

The latest data indicates a hallucination rate of 2% to 27%. Who in your company will have the knowledge of adult learning, the expertise to create enriching content that delivers the correct information in a structural and effective way, and the know-how to deliver it via your learning system?

Because here is the thing. You pitch productivity as a reason for having AI. You push the premise that reducing tasks will boost productivity, lower costs, and enable employees to focus more on what is needed.
You tell your company that employee development is crucial. Skill development. Upskilling. It exists in your learning system Or the one you plan to purchase.

For customer training, the knowledge of the product/service makes all the difference in the world. You want a profit center. Whether it is directly through your clients (via your training department and learning system – regardless if it is an LMS, LXP, Learning Platform, or some combo of it) or a benefit to your customer base because of the product or service they purchased.

In the end, it is all about a happy customer. Distributor. Partner. Client and so forth.

Who is going to have you get there? Marketing? Wait, you gutted them, and they lack adult learning, let alone approaches to profit-driven training with the right content. HR? Gutted, and seriously? Training? You cut them loose. IT? Next to potato chips that taste like steak (supposedly, and yes, it did exist in the 90s), Oh, I know…

Nobody.

E-Learning 24/7