The 10 Lies of Learning: Lie #5: “We Have a Pizza Problem…”

Continuing our countdown of the biggest lies in Learning & Development, we reach #5—the misguided belief that vague training requests and leadership declarations alone are enough to actually define the problem that needs solving.

“Our people need to learn to make pizza.”

On the surface, this seems straightforward. Your client or stakeholder has identified a learning need: pizza-making. Simple, right? Design a pizza-making course, roll it out, and voilà—problem solved!

Except… what exactly does “make pizza” mean in this context?

Are we talking about crafting artisanal sourdough crusts from scratch?
Are specific cheese blends and sauce types in scope?
Does Hawaiian pizza count? (Yes, it does, IMHO)
Do we need to explore secondment and apprenticeship arrangements in Italy?
Or can we just hand the team a frozen pizza box and point to the instructions on the box?
Are we talking more about ordering delivery pizza, not making it?
Does this need to extend to restaurant management?
Or maybe this is something else entirely where “pizza” is just a convenient metaphor?

I call this the “pizza problem”—when stakeholders present ambiguous training requests that masquerade as clear problem statements. It’s a lie because it presents the appearance of clarity while obscuring the real performance issue. Just because it’s clear in “your” head (“Just teach them to make pizza!”) doesn’t mean I’m going to hit the objectives and generate the needed results.

Why This Problem is so Pervasive

The pizza problem occurs in virtually every organization, usually beginning with statements like:

“We need leadership training for our managers.”
“Our team needs to learn customer service skills.”
“Everyone should get Excel training.”
“We need to build a sales culture.”
“Our employees need communication skills.”

These requests sound specific, but they’re about as precise as saying, “Our people need to learn to make pizza.” They’re the starting point of a conversation, not the conclusion.

The Appeal of the Pizza Problem

Both requesters and learning professionals perpetuate this problem for understandable reasons:

For Requesters:

It’s easier to prescribe a solution than define a problem. Articulating exactly what’s not working and why is challenging. Asking for “leadership training” feels actionable.
The requester might lack the analytical tools to identify root causes. They observe symptoms (poor team performance) and reach for familiar remedies (leadership training).
Training requests seem less threatening than addressing systemic issues. Asking for training implies “our people need fixing,” not “our processes or leadership are flawed.”

For L&D Professionals:

Accepting vague requests at face value feels responsive. Pushing back might seem uncooperative at best; or at worst, seeming to lack understanding of the business.
Designing the solution as scripted from the requestor might seem very straightforward. Investigating the underlying problem is messy and political, might take additional time, and might even seem an act of defiance.
Building what’s requested guarantees short-term satisfaction. The requester gets exactly what they asked for, even if it doesn’t solve the actual problem.

The Cost of the Pizza Problem

Accepting ambiguous training requests leads to predictable consequences:

Wasted resources: Organizations invest millions in training that addresses symptoms rather than causes.
Diminished L&D credibility: When the training doesn’t fix the problem (because it was never designed to address the real issue), L&D’s reputation suffers.
Training fatigue: Employees subjected to repeated training that doesn’t address underlying issues become cynical about all learning initiatives.
Missed opportunities for systemic improvement: By focusing on training individuals, organizations overlook chances to fix broken processes or structures.

Research from the Cape Group found that up to 80% of training requests, when properly analyzed, revealed non-training issues as the root cause of performance problems.¹ Similarly, a Gartner study showed that 70% of employee performance issues stem from systemic factors rather than skill or knowledge deficits.²

These aren’t just far-fetched hypotheticals. I can’t tell you the number of times one or a combination of these factors have hit me and/or my team hard. During a prestigious organization’s campus hire onboarding redesign, we faced a classic L&D challenge. After months of work and a successful launch, one piece of feedback caught me off guard: “We said the goal was ‘Day 1 readiness’… yet some new grads don’t even understand the travel policy.”

I never imagined “travel policy expertise” would be considered essential for Day 1 readiness! Thankfully, strong relationships with stakeholders allowed us to recalibrate expectations for the next cohort.

The lesson? What seems obvious to you about learning objectives might be completely different to your stakeholders. Always clarify content scope – even for seemingly straightforward goals like “Day 1 readiness.”

From “Pizza Problem” to Precise Diagnosis

So how do we move from vague training requests to actual solutions? Here’s a framework I’ve found effective:

1 – Acknowledge the request, then investigate the need

When someone says, “We need leadership training,” respond with:

“I’d be happy to explore leadership development with you. To make sure we create something that delivers real value, could you share what specific outcomes you’re hoping to see?”

2 – Ask the critical questions

What is happening now vs. what should be happening? Get specific examples of the performance gap.
What is the business impact of this gap? Quantify the cost if possible.
What would success look like? Define measurable outcomes.
What barriers might exist beyond knowledge or skills? Explore motivation, environment, tools, etc.
Who exactly needs to do what differently? Identify the specific population and behaviors.

3 – Reframe from content to outcomes

Move the conversation from “What should they learn?” to “What should they be able to do?” and ultimately to “What business results should improve?”

4 – Propose a comprehensive approach

Based on your analysis, recommend solutions that might include training but also address other factors that influence performance.

Case Study: From Generic Request to Specific Solution

I did a strategy project for an accounting and consulting firm to restructure their learning paths for a major line of business. I was shown a massive heat map of survey data. The enthusiasm with which it was presented was accompanied by some encouragement and beaming claims that ‘half of it is done!’ – i.e. this huge heat map in Excel lays out the story, we just need to create it. I noticed two problems immediately – 1) the data was derived from surveying staff not leadership – akin to asking the kids to decide what’s for dinner. (i.e., what is wanted may not be what is needed), 2) It was simply hundreds of rows, thousands of color-coded cells telling me that pizza making skills were needed. No meaningful context to indicate what “Excel skills” or “Leadership” or “data analysis” might mean – just a color-coded cell to indicate it was needed at a yellow, orange, red or dark red level of urgency. Back to the pizza problem metaphor – I had no idea if I needed to start negotiating a contract for certified data analyst training with an expert provider for 1000’s of staff or simply have the phrase “correlation is not causation” written on a poster board in the lobby of every office.

In the end, I worked with my team to interview ALL the solution and sub-line-leaders. Yes, it was hundreds of hours of interviewing. But it netted an irrefutable plan – and within a year over 90% of it was complete with an agreed upon mix of ‘pizza boxes’, ‘delivery orders’, and a trip or two to Italy to really get it right.

And yes, this was the scenario that inspired the “pizza problem” metaphor.

How to Avoid the Pizza Problem

If You’re an L&D Professional:

Develop consulting skills, not just design skills. The most valuable thing you can do is help stakeholders clarify what problem they’re really trying to solve.
Create a standard intake process. Develop a set of questions that will help surface the real performance gaps behind training requests.
Build analytical models. Frameworks like Mager and Pipe’s Performance Analysis or Gilbert’s Behavior Engineering Model can help identify the true causes of performance issues.³
Reframe your role. You’re not an order-taker for training requests; you’re a performance consultant who might recommend training as one of several potential solutions.

If You’re a Business Leader:

Start with outcomes, not solutions. Instead of “We need training on X,” try “We need to improve outcome Y.”
Be open to non-training solutions. Sometimes the most effective intervention isn’t training-based at all.
Provide access and information. Allow L&D to observe work, interview employees, and examine processes.
Expect and value pushback. A good L&D partner will ask challenging questions to get to the root cause.

A Better Conversation

Here’s how a more productive exchange might unfold:

Leader: “Our people need to learn how to make pizza.”
L&D Partner: “I’d be happy to help with that. To help me better understand what you’re looking for, could you share what specific challenges you’re seeing that led to this request?”
Leader: “Our customers are complaining that they’re waiting too long for their orders, and some pizzas are being delivered with incorrect toppings.”
L&D Partner: “I see. And what do you think is causing these issues?”
Leader: “I assume our staff doesn’t know the proper procedures or doesn’t understand the importance of accuracy.”
L&D Partner: “That’s certainly one possibility. Would it be helpful if we observed the current process and maybe talked with some of the team members to identify exactly where things are breaking down? That way, we can design a solution that specifically targets the actual problems.”
Leader: “Yes, that makes sense. What would that process look like?”

This conversation shifts from a vague solution (“learn to make pizza”) to a collaborative investigation of the real performance issues.

The Path Forward

The next time you hear—or find yourself saying—“We need training on X,” pause and reframe the conversation:

“What business problem are we trying to solve?”
“What specific performance gaps are we seeing?”
“What would success look like?”
“What factors might be contributing to the current situation?”

By rejecting the “pizza problem” approach, you’ll design solutions that address root causes rather than symptoms, delivering real value to your organization and building credibility for the L&D function.

In our next installment, we’ll explore Lie #4: “We need to write some learning objectives”—another comfortable fiction that often distracts from genuine learning design. Until then, take a fresh look at your current training requests and ask whether you’re being asked to make pizza without knowing what kind, for whom, or why.

Click here to follow Josh on LinkedIn:

Josh LeFebvre on LinkedIn

Josh is the founder of Kay/Allison - a firm solving corporate learning and talent development challenges.  He provides strategic advisory, interim/fractional leadership, and complex project management services in the learning and development field.  His 25 years of experience has demonstrated a focus on business impact and clarity punctuated by thoughtful analysis and plain-spoken recommendations.  He is a long standing collaborator with Smartfirm and can be reached through our team or directly at joshlefebvre@kayandallison.com.

The opinions expressed in this article are Josh’s and do not necessarily reflect the official views or positions of Smartfirm. This content is provided for informational purposes only.

References

[1] Flesher, D., & Hale, J. (2010). The Enduring Learning Organization. American Society for Training and Development.

[2] Gartner. (2019). Reframing Employee Performance Management. Gartner, Inc.

[3] Gilbert, T. F. (1978). Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance. McGraw-Hill.

Share this post: