Continuing our countdown of the biggest lies in Learning & Development, we arrive at #7—the persistent complaint that something in L&D is fundamentally broken, when the real issues often lie elsewhere.
“Our onboarding is terrible.”
“Our leadership development is broken.”
“Our performance management system is a disaster.”
“Our learning technology is woefully outdated.”
Sound familiar? In my years consulting with organizations on learning and development, I’ve heard countless variations of this lament from a leader.
Sometimes they’re right. But more often, they’re misdiagnosing the problem—focusing on a symptom rather than the underlying organizational condition. It’s like complaining about a persistent cough, assuming it’s Covid, all the while ignoring the cigarette in your hand.
The Appeal of the “Broken L&D” Narrative
This particular lie is seductive for several reasons:
- It localizes a systemic problem: By declaring that a specific L&D capability is “broken,” we neatly contain the problem. It’s not the organization’s culture, leadership practices, or business model that’s flawed nor is it something less obvious within the L&D part of the organization (Modality mix? Vendor selection? Undervalue of sub-segments of the department? Staff alignment?).
- It suggests a straightforward solution: If something is broken, the solution is to fix or replace it. This is far more comfortable than addressing complex organizational dynamics that might require fundamental changes to how business is conducted.
- It creates a convenient scapegoat: When business results disappoint, blaming the “broken” leadership development program, or execution of facets of the L&D department, is easier than examining decisions, strategies, or inefficiencies.
- It appeals to the “new and shiny” bias: Declaring something “broken and awful” creates the justification for the exciting replacement—a brand new learning platform, a redesigned onboarding experience, or a cutting-edge leadership framework. “We just closed a deal with [insert fancy HRIS system name] so everything will be fine.”
The Reality Behind the Complaint
When someone claims an L&D capability is broken, I’ve learned to ask questions before accepting the diagnosis. Here’s what I typically find:
- Misaligned expectations: What the business expects from the capability and what it was designed to deliver are often dramatically different. A leadership program designed to develop long-term capabilities gets criticized for not solving immediate performance issues.
- Under-resourced implementation: Many L&D initiatives are well-designed but poorly implemented due to insufficient resources, abbreviated timelines, or lack of leadership support. As the saying goes, “There has never been enough time to do it right, but always enough time to do it over.”
- Lack of supporting systems: Learning doesn’t exist in a vacuum. When other organizational systems—performance management, compensation, promotion criteria, workload allocation—don’t support or actively contradict what’s being taught, the learning initiative gets blamed.
- Unrealistic change expectations: According to research from the NeuroLeadership Institute, significant behavior change requires 3-6 months of consistent practice with support.1 Many organizations expect transformation after a two-day workshop.
- The wrong answer to the right question: The solution doesn’t match the problem and/or treating the symptom not the disease’. My shoulder hurts so I’ll work my shoulders – not considering the issue might be lower back or neck issues.
The Research Perspective
The data supports this more nuanced view:
- McKinsey research found that 70% of change programs fail, not because of poor design, but because of employee resistance and lack of management support.2
- A study in the International Journal of Training and Development found that managerial support had three times more impact on training transfer than the quality of the training itself.3
- The Work Institute’s 2020 Retention Report identified that 78% of the reasons employees give for leaving are preventable, with lack of growth and development opportunities being a leading factor—despite the same organizations often having formal development programs.4
- Brandon Hall Group research shows that 70% of organizations rate their onboarding as inadequate, yet the same organizations typically invest less than a third of what they spend on recruitment in the onboarding process.5
From “Broken” to “Breaking Through”: A Better Approach
For L&D Leaders:
Rather than accepting the “broken and awful” narrative, try this approach when faced with criticism of an L&D capability:
- Conduct a true root cause analysis: When someone declares something broken, respond with curiosity, “Help me understand what’s not working and what impact that’s having.” Then dig deeper with the “5 Whys” technique to get to underlying causes.
For example:- “Our leadership development program is broken”
- Why do you think it’s not working? “Our new managers aren’t prepared for their roles.”
- Why aren’t they prepared despite the program? “They don’t use what they learn.”
- Why don’t they apply what they learn? “Their own managers don’t support the new approaches.”
- Why don’t senior managers support new approaches? “They’re not measured on developing their people.”
- Why isn’t development part of their metrics? “Because we prioritize short-term results over long-term capability building.”
Now you’ve uncovered that the real issue isn’t the leadership program—it’s the organization’s performance metrics and culture.
- “Our leadership development program is broken”
- Map the entire ecosystem: Any learning initiative exists within a complex system. Map all the factors that influence its success:
- Organizational priorities and messages
- Manager support and reinforcement
- Time and resources allocated
- Systems and processes that enable or inhibit application
- Consequences (positive and negative) for applying new skills
- Cultural norms and expectations
Research by Robert Brinkerhoff found that learning impact is determined 20% by the learning design, 20% by learner motivation, and 60% by organizational factors like those above.6
- Use corporate jiu-jitsu: Turn criticism into support. When a leader declares something “broken,” respond with:
- “You’re right that we’re not getting the results we need. I’d like to partner with you to fix this properly. That will likely involve some changes to both the learning program and how the organization supports it. Would you be willing to champion those broader changes?”
This reframes the conversation from “fix this broken thing” to “let’s collaborate on a comprehensive solution.”
- “You’re right that we’re not getting the results we need. I’d like to partner with you to fix this properly. That will likely involve some changes to both the learning program and how the organization supports it. Would you be willing to champion those broader changes?”
- Establish clear capability outcomes: Many L&D initiatives fail because they lack clearly defined success metrics beyond completion rates or satisfaction scores. Work with business partners to establish meaningful outcome measures:
- What observable behaviors should change?
- What business results should improve?
- How will we measure these changes?
- What is our timeline for seeing impact?
Research from Deloitte shows that organizations with clearly defined L&D metrics are 2.8 times more likely to report that their learning programs meet business goals.7
For Business Leaders:
Rather than automatically assuming that learning is broken, consider approaching the issue in this way:
- Look beyond the obvious: When a learning capability seems broken, consider whether the surrounding organizational systems are supporting or undermining it.
- Assess your contribution: Are you modeling the behaviors and creating the conditions for successful learning transfer?
- Partner, don’t order: Work with L&D to define meaningful success metrics and create the conditions for meeting them.
- Be prepared for uncomfortable truths: Sometimes, what’s broken isn’t the learning program but organizational practices that no one wants to confront.
CASE STUDY: “Broken” Onboarding Fixed Through Systems Thinking
A services firm I was helping had issues with their L&D department. Leadership insisted that a lack of internal learning design resources was a critical cause of quantitatively lackluster output from the L&D department. After investigating more, I realized the issue was an operational one involving outdated process and inefficient staffing. I explained, “You can outsource your design and write a check to solve that problem – but we have a ton of issues in process…and that’s much harder if not impossible to outsource at this point. We need to focus there.”
With renewed alignment, we were able to dramatically improve operational efficiency and propel the growth of a $1bn organization!
The Path Forward
The next time you hear (or find yourself saying) that some L&D capability is “broken and awful,” pause and ask:
- What specific outcomes are we not achieving?
- What evidence do we have about the root causes?
- What parts of our organizational system are supporting or hindering these outcomes?
- Who needs to be involved in creating a comprehensive solution?
By resisting the temptation to localize systemic problems to a single “broken” L&D capability, you’ll develop more effective solutions—and avoid the cynicism that comes from repeatedly “fixing” programs without addressing the environments in which they operate.
In our next installment, we’ll explore Lie #6: “But what about the ___ generation?!?”—another convenient oversimplification that distracts us from more fundamental learning principles. Until then, take a closer look at those “broken” L&D capabilities in your organization. The real issue—and solution—may be far more interesting than you initially thought.
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 joshlefebvre@kayandallison.com.
References
[1] Rock, D., & Schwartz, J. (2007). The Neuroscience of Leadership. Strategy+Business, 43.
[2] Keller, S., & Aiken, C. (2009). The Inconvenient Truth About Change Management. McKinsey & Company.
[3] Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of Training: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065-1105.
[4] Work Institute. (2020). 2020 Retention Report: Trends, Reasons & Recommendations.
[5] Brandon Hall Group. (2021). The State of Learning & Development 2021.
[6] Brinkerhoff, R. O., & Montesino, M. U. (1995). Partnerships for Training Transfer: Lessons from a Corporate Study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6(3), 263-274.
[7] Deloitte. (2019). Human Capital Trends 2019: Leading the Social Enterprise.
