As we approach the top of our countdown of the biggest lies in Learning & Development (L&D), we reach #4—the ritualistic obsession with learning objectives that often serves regulators better than learners.
“After completing this session, participants will be able to list ten key principles of…”
“By the end of this module, learners will be able to describe the differences between…”
“Upon completion, attendees will be able to identify three common mistakes when…”
If you’ve spent any time in corporate L&D, you’ve seen these formulaic statements plastered at the beginning of training programs like regulatory disclaimers. They’re treated as sacred requirements, the foundation upon which all good learning design must be built.
But here’s the uncomfortable truth: most learning objectives are bureaucratic artifacts that exist to satisfy compliance requirements and instructional design checklists, not to genuinely guide learners toward meaningful outcomes.
The Learning Objectives Orthodoxy
The obsession with learning objectives has deep roots in instructional design theory, particularly Robert Mager’s influential work from the 1960s.1 The idea was sound: clearly defined objectives would help designers create focused instruction and provide measurable outcomes.
Over the decades, this sensible principle hardened into dogma. Learning objectives became mandatory features of every training program, regardless of context, audience, or purpose. They evolved into a compliance mechanism—proof that someone had thought systematically about learning design.
The problem isn’t that learning objectives are inherently bad. It’s that they’ve become performative rather than purposeful, existing more for the comfort of instructional designers and regulators than for the benefit of learners.
What’s Wrong with Standard Learning Objectives
1. They Use Squeamish Language
Most learning objectives are written in the passive, academic language of assessment rather than the active language of application. They favor verbs like “list,” “describe,” “identify,” and “explain”—activities that demonstrate knowledge but don’t necessarily indicate the ability to apply that knowledge in real-world contexts.
Consider the difference between:
- “Participants will be able to list five steps in the conflict resolution process”
- “You’ll be able to defuse tense situations with customers and turn complaints into opportunities”
The first is a learning objective. The second is a promise.
2. They Serve the Provider, Not the Learner
Traditional learning objectives are written from the perspective of what the training will cover, not what the learner will gain. They’re convenient for instructional designers because they provide a checklist for content coverage, but they rarely inspire learners or connect to real workplace challenges. [Now, at times, objectives have to be written this way to comply with regulations or accreditation standards. Instructional designers need to challenge themselves to use language that meets their design standards but focuses more on what the learner will be able to do or apply outside of the course, and not just what they can regurgitate.]
Research from the NeuroLeadership Institute shows that learning objectives written in “provider-centric” language actually decrease learner motivation compared to “learner-centric” outcome statements.2
3. They Emphasize Knowledge Over Performance
The classic taxonomy of learning objectives (remember Bloom’s Taxonomy?) prioritizes cognitive activities—knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation. While these mental processes matter, they don’t necessarily translate to workplace performance.
A study published in the International Journal of Training and Development found that learning programs focused on performance outcomes rather than knowledge objectives showed 34% better transfer to job performance.3
4. They Create False Precision
Learning objectives suggest a level of predictability and control over learning outcomes that simply doesn’t exist. Real learning is messy, individual, and often serendipitous. By pretending we can precisely control what someone will be able to do after a training session, we’re engaging in wishful thinking at best and deceptive marketing at worst.
The Compliance Trap
Why do learning objectives persist despite these limitations? Because they serve important bureaucratic functions:
- For Regulatory Bodies
Accreditation organizations, professional certification bodies, and government agencies often require learning objectives as evidence of systematic instructional planning. They provide auditable proof that training was designed rather than thrown together. - For Legal Protection
Learning objectives create documentation that can protect organizations in litigation. “We clearly stated what the training would cover and our records show all employees completed it.” - For Instructional Designers
Writing learning objectives is a familiar ritual that provides structure and confidence. It’s easier to follow established templates than to wrestle with the harder questions of what learners actually need and why. - For Budget Approval
Learning objectives make training requests sound systematic and professional. They suggest that someone has thought carefully about outcomes and measurement, even when that’s not actually the case.
A Better Approach: Learner-Centric Promises
Instead of writing learning objectives for compliance purposes, consider making authentic promises to learners. Here’s how to shift your approach:
1. Start with Real Problems
Rather than beginning with “learners will be able to,” start with the challenges people actually face:
- “Struggling to give feedback that actually changes behavior?”
- “Tired of meetings that waste everyone’s time?”
- “Frustrated by spreadsheets that take forever to update?”
2. Make Concrete Commitments
Replace academic language with specific, meaningful promises:
- Instead of: “Participants will be able to identify components of effective presentations”
- Try: “You’ll design presentations that keep people engaged and drive decisions”
3. Connect to Business Outcomes
Link learning to real business results:
- “After this program, your team’s customer satisfaction scores will improve”
- “You’ll close deals 20% faster using these negotiation techniques”
- “Your project timelines will become predictable and achievable”
4. Acknowledge Individual Differences
Recognize that learning is personal:
- “Depending on your current skill level, you might master these techniques immediately or need several weeks of practice”
- “The specific outcomes will vary based on your role and challenges”
Case Study: From Objectives to Outcomes
A global consulting firm was frustrated with their project management training. Despite clear learning objectives (“participants will be able to identify five project planning methodologies”), project failures continued.
They redesigned the program around learner-centric promises:
Old approach:
- “Participants will be able to list the phases of project management”
- “Learners will be able to describe risk assessment techniques”
- “Attendees will be able to identify stakeholder management strategies”
New approach:
- “Your projects will finish on time and on budget”
- “You’ll anticipate and prevent the problems that derail most projects”
- “Stakeholders will actually support your initiatives instead of creating obstacles”
- “You’ll sleep better knowing your projects are under control”
The results? Project success rates improved by 43% within six months, and more importantly, enrollment in advanced project management programs increased by 67% as word spread about the practical value.4
When Learning Objectives Actually Work
This isn’t to say learning objectives are always useless.
They can be valuable when:
- They’re Written for Learners, Not Regulators
Effective objectives answer the learner’s question: “What’s in this for me?” They’re written in plain language and connect to real workplace challenges. “After this course, you will be able to confidently navigate change and conflict in the workplace.” - They Focus on Application, Not Knowledge
The best objectives emphasize what learners will be able to do differently rather than what they’ll be able to recite or remember. - They’re Tested and Refined
Too often, learning objectives are written once and never revisited. The most valuable objectives evolve based on learner feedback and actual outcomes. - They’re Honest About Limitations
Great objectives acknowledge that learning takes time and practice. They set realistic expectations rather than promising instant transformation.
What This Means for You
If you’re an L&D professional:
- Question the ritual: Before writing standard learning objectives, ask whether they’ll actually help learners or just satisfy bureaucratic requirements.
- Talk to your audience: What do learners actually care about? What problems keep them up at night? Use their language, not academic jargon.
- Make real promises: Commit to outcomes you can deliver and stand behind. Your credibility depends on it.
- Separate compliance from marketing: If you need formal objectives for accreditation, write them. But also create learner-facing promises that inspire and motivate.
If you’re a business leader:
- Look beyond the objectives: Don’t be impressed by formal learning objectives that sound academic. Ask instead: “What specific problems will this solve?”
- Demand specificity: Push your L&D partners to explain exactly how the training will improve business outcomes, not just what topics it will cover.
- Expect accountability: Learning objectives should create real commitments, not just documentation.
The Hard Questions
Here are the questions that matter more than perfectly crafted learning objectives:
- Will learners be able to solve real problems they couldn’t solve before?
- How will we know if the learning actually transferred to the workplace?
- What specific business results should improve as a consequence?
- Are we making promises we can actually keep?
- Would learners choose this program if it weren’t mandatory?
In our next installment, we’ll explore Lie #3: “But it’s not instructionally sound!”—the dangerous confusion of methodological purity with practical effectiveness. Until then, take a hard look at your learning objectives and ask whether they’re serving learners or just serving bureaucracy.
Click here to follow Josh on LinkedIn:
Josh LeFebvre on LinkedInJosh 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 josh@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] Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing Instructional Objectives. Fearon Publishers.
[2] Rock, D., & Schwartz, J. (2006). The Neuroscience of Leadership. Strategy+Business, 43.
[3] Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311-328.
[4] This case study is a composite based on several real-world examples, with identifying details removed.
