Why Nearly All Professional Development Training Is Still Missing the Point (And What Actually Works)
I was at this corporate training session in Brisbane recently when the bloke beside me started scrolling through emails. Honestly, I don’t blame him. The facilitator was rabbiting on about “synergistic paradigm shifts” while showing us PowerPoint slides that looked like they were designed in 2003. Having spent over two decades in the professional development game from Perth to the Gold Coast, I’ve seen this same old formula repeated everywhere from construction firms in Darwin to fintech companies in Melbourne.
The thing that drives me mental? We’re throwing money at training that trains nobody but definitely enriches the training companies.
The majority of training programs are built backwards. It begins with what looks impressive in a brochure instead of what actually solves workplace problems. I’ve walked into many organisations where the L&D manager proudly shows me their “complete 47-module leadership program” while their best performers are walking out the door faster than you can say “employee engagement survey”.
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: roughly three-quarters of workplace training produces zero meaningful change. I pulled that figure out of thin air, but anyone who’s worked in corporate Australia knows it’s probably conservative.
I remember working with Sarah, an absolute gun at a transport company. Smart operations manager, fifteen years experience, could solve problems that would make your head spin. The company shipped her off to some generic leadership program that cost more than most people’s monthly salary. The material was so disconnected from actual logistics work it might as well have been about running a bakery. The whole experience left her questioning whether the company understood her role at all.
This is problem number one: we’ve turned learning into a factory process.
Training has become this mass-produced commodity where one size fits no one particularly well. The same generic material gets rolled out to construction supervisors and banking executives. It’s like buying a suit off the rack and expecting it to fit perfectly. Sometimes it works. Usually it does not.
Problem two: terrible timing. Development programs run when it suits the organisation, not when employees are struggling with real problems. We bundle people into courses based on their job title rather than their genuine development needs.
I worked with a Geelong manufacturer who thought all team leaders should attend identical training sessions. Some of these fellas had been leading people since before mobile phones existed. The other half were terrified of giving feedback to anyone. Guess which group got the best value?
I’m about to upset some people: the majority of interpersonal skills training is absolutely useless.
The skills matter, but we’ve got adult learning totally wrong when it comes to people stuff. PowerPoint presentations do not create better managers any more than recipe books create master chefs. It’s the equivalent of becoming a chef by memorising cookbooks.
Genuine learning occurs when people are dealing with actual problems in real time. The training that genuinely works focuses on problems people are losing sleep over. None of this artificial simulation garbage. Issues that kept the CEO awake at night.
Training coordinators get uncomfortable because it doesn’t fit into tidy learning modules. They want neat learning objectives and tick-box assessments. But learning doesn’t happen in neat boxes.
I do not work with companies that want cookie-cutter programs anymore. If you want standard, hire someone else. My programs are built around the specific challenges your people face in your particular industry with your particular constraints.
Look at performance conversations, for instance. Every organisation reckons their managers need help with difficult conversations. But a construction foreman giving feedback to a new apprentice about safety procedures is completely different from a marketing manager discussing campaign performance with their creative team. The context, the relationship, the entire communication approach is worlds apart.
The biggest issue might be what comes next – which is usually sweet FA.
Development finishes when the Zoom call ends. Nobody follows up, nobody checks in, nobody provides ongoing help. Imagine having one tennis lesson and expecting to play Wimbledon.
I know a retail company that dropped serious money on service skills development. Six months later, mystery shoppers found no measurable improvement in customer interactions. The content was decent enough. Nobody provided ongoing coaching or practice opportunities.
Here’s something controversial: I think most trainers don’t understand business.
They’re experts at adult learning theory and instructional design. They know adult learning theory and can design engaging workshops. Most have never faced an angry customer, missed a deadline that mattered, or had to let someone go.
The gap becomes obvious when you try to apply textbook solutions to real workplace problems. Real business is messier and more complicated than most training acknowledges.
The companies getting real value from professional development are doing a few things differently.
First, they’re ruthlessly specific about what they want to achieve. Not “better leadership” but “reduce project delays caused by poor team communication”. They skip broad goals like “enhanced communication” and target “decrease project rework by 30%”.
Second, they’re involving line managers in the development process. Your boss influences your development more in one week than a training course does in three days. But most organisations treat managers like they’re obstacles to development rather than partners in it.
The third difference is focusing on real results instead of happy faces on evaluation forms. What’s the point of five-star feedback if nobody changes how they work?.
Telstra’s approach integrates learning directly into daily work instead of treating it as a separate activity. Learning happens through real work with mentoring and support along the way.
Don’t get me wrong – not every conventional training program is garbage. Hands-on technical training delivers results when it’s properly structured. Workplace safety education prevents accidents and deaths. Compliance training keeps you out of legal trouble.
The people skills that businesses are crying out for need a totally different strategy.
The future of professional development looks more like apprenticeships and less like workshops. People learning by doing real work with expert guidance and gradual increases in responsibility and complexity.
You have to acknowledge that growth is unpredictable, unique to each person, and can’t be rushed. You need to build coaching capabilities in your leadership team. Results are judged on impact, not on how many people attended training.
Many companies resist this change because it means acknowledging their existing training investment has been largely wasted. Scheduling another seminar feels safer than overhauling your entire approach.
Organisations that crack this code will leave their competitors in the dust. These companies will build skills faster, reduce turnover, and generate real value from development budgets.
Meanwhile, other organisations will keep throwing money at programs that change nothing.
Your call.
If you liked this article and you would like to acquire more info about Information on Training Providers kindly visit our web-page.
