According to two doctoral alumni at Stanford, open-enrollment virtual programs often see completion rates of only around 5%-15%.  Despite this reporting, I actually believe 5%-15% is high.  How do I know? Because several providers I have insight into have even lower rates of completion. It’s not that virtual self-study programs are bad, nor is it that they don’t work.  It’s that they’re structured and presented incorrectly.

Since 2008, our surveys of live in-person and live virtual programs, which echo the feedback from other learning and development experts, have highlighted a multitude of reasons why training fails. Yet, surprisingly, even with this awareness, most companies continue to invest in outdated training methods. Whether delivering live via Zoom or on-demand via a learning management system (LMS), virtual deliveries should be done thoughtfully and intentionally. Instructional design should take note of ALL the reasons why traditional training fails and how to address these issues.

1 Training and Development Programs Fail When they Overwhelm Groups with Content and Underwhelm with Application and Insight

A common approach to training and development involves having an expert in front of a room (or webcam) divulging everything they know about a topic and in a short period of time. While it’s important to learn from experts, learning and transformation doesn’t effectively happen by listening to information or going through linear exercises. Learning needs to be supplemented with demonstration, story, and reflection during intentionally-curated time-blocks. It needs to illustrate how key skills and lessons are applied in real life situations, not just introduced figuratively or abstractly. Feedback we receive highlights the importance of relevant exercises, cases, stories, and application to the work people are actually doing every day. If it doesn’t, it’s a lost opportunity.

2 Training and Development Programs Fail When they Aren’t Structured in A Meaningful, Cohesive Way That Encourages Stickiness

Feedback we receive from our program attendees spotlights what we’re doing right AND what we could improve upon in terms of structure. In some instances, our attendees say our programs are too many days. In others, our attendees say our program days are too few. But what both sides frequently say is that there should be more ways to keep the learning going. While I don’t think there’s a problem with exposing groups to an abundance of information, there is a big problem with exposing too much information in the wrong way and over the wrong period of time. Rather than jam a full course into a single day or multiple consecutive days, learning happens best when it is spread over a longer period of time and through a deliberately-crafted journey. This journey doesn’t just involve exposure to knowledge and education, but it is intermittently peppered with various active learning and engagement strategies to ensure that what gets learned, sticks and gets implemented.

3 Training and Development Programs Fail When they Lack Active Learning and Engagement Strategies

Let’s admit it, most training is boring. Many of us have been in programs with instructors who remind us of the dullest teachers or professors we had in grade-school or college. We attend training out of necessity, because we’re told we have to or because our licenses require annual continuing education. Sadly, this sets the bar low and we are elated when participating in a program that exceeds these base expectations. But that’s not the way training and development should be. It should be engaging, meaningful, sticky, and fun. There should be opportunity for breaks and self-reflection; there should be down time for socializing and catching up on work; there should be a mix of live engagement and on-demand consumption. Facilitation should be active and varied across mediums, durations, experts, and time. It should involve peers we can talk to or a greater community we can feel apart of. It should be something we look forward to attending and being a part of, not something we resent participating in.

4 Training and Development Programs Fail When they Don’t Offer Peer or Community Participation

Nutrition, exercise, and peer-focused enterprises like Weight Watchers, Peloton, and even Seth Godin’s Alt-MBA succeed not in spite of their communities, but because of them. It not only invites a warmer sense of belonging, but it also fosters friendly competition and peer pressure. When attending programs as a group, and competing cordially through gamification with others going through similar experiences, it encourages a support network and accountability. When people aspire to improve themselves and their abilities, they want to be held accountable. Unfortunately, for most training programs, learning and collegiality end when the program concludes. Programs should feed into an ecosystem of continuous learning, support, and community.

5 Training and Development Programs Fail When Participants Know Their Peers Don’t Know About It

In larger organizations, it’s not uncommon for training and development to take place within a vacuum. This is particularly true of self-study programs where senior-level professionals may not know about a team member’s enrollment. Because there is limited awareness, encouragement, accountability, and eventual celebration, the participant’s enthusiasm toward development is largely self-managed. Instead, if enrollment details are made public, and others in the company are aware and have bought into the process, we’ve found that participants are more likely to stay focused and accountable.

6 Training and Development Programs Fail When Decision-Makers Don’t Know How to Measure Success

This last point is so easy to mention, yet so difficult to illustrate. When decision-makers are referred to us, they often say “we want a training program that focuses on X, Y, and Z topics.” However, when asked to explain what they’re trying to accomplish, the answer is often brief and surface level — “we want them to learn these skills”. Knowledge is great for learning, but it’s not as useful if it’s learning for the sake of learning. Success in a program doesn’t come from a transference of knowledge and a teaching of skills — it comes from tangible and intangible measurement of growth: how much time has been saved? What new advances have we gotten from our best people that we would have needed to otherwise hire to find? What projects can we now do that we couldn’t do before? How are our people thinking, acting, and working now that is remarkably different than 6 months ago? How has collaboration among the group improved? Did development lead to a promotion or a raise? How much money was saved by enrolling a group in a program with sponsored continuing professional education units versus sending them to a conference? Of course the objective of a training program is to help people learn, but it goes deeper than that. We need to ensure our best people are positioned and supported throughout a longer development journey of professional and personal growth. They should be able to build greater awareness, mindset, and confidence in addition to technical skills. When they complete the journey, we know what success looks like.

What Can You Do?

Because the world is constantly evolving, and change is happening more rapidly than ever, I’ve long emphasized the importance of maintaining a diversified life and work portfolio. At the same time, I advocate for a contrarian outlook on work and life — taking time away to refresh, reinvent and reposition for future opportunities. We never know when our companies, industries, or lives will be disrupted but we do know that skills development and personal growth are vital to our marketability and the value we bring to our organizations. I implore you to keep learning and encourage you to keep experiencing, looking to new forms of growth and development for yourself and your teams.