Not all Training is Learning & Development

By Elizabeth Fiting | Chief Learning Officer

“Not all training is learning & development, any more than all whiskeys are bourbon.” ~ Me, in a conversation with Jesse that I’ve decided to quote

One time, I was developing learning assets for a new manager onboarding program that had a ridiculously aggressive timeline and that was of very high value—so it had little room for error. Unfortunately for me, many of the topics I needed to develop content for were currently “in flight” within the business. Critical messaging and KPIs changed almost daily. Every time I thought I understood the topics enough to create the content, the target shifted. This forced me to figure out whether I could update what I had with the new information or if I had to start from scratch because the new information blew up how I had architected the learning. 

At one point, in a moment of frustration, I turned to a colleague—a subject matter expert that I was working closely with—and said, “I feel like Sisyphus pushing a boulder up a mountain, but every time it rolls downhill I also get run over by it.”

My colleague responded, “I don’t know why you’re overthinking this so much. It’s just training.”

😲🤯🤬

I am not going to unpack every thought that went through my head when I heard that statement. What I will share is that in order to not turn into the angry swearing emoji, I grasped onto my colleague’s classification that what I was doing was “training.” I informed them that what I was building wasn’t training but was learning & development.

“What’s the difference?” they asked.

Isn’t that the million-dollar question?

* * * * *

To call something “training” is not a bad thing. Merriam-Webster defines training (verb) as, “to teach so as to make fit, qualified, or proficient” or “to form by instruction, discipline, or drill.” It speaks to the tactical, tangible skills and processes you need to know in order to do your job. Training can be learning how to create a pivot table. It can be understanding how to read a P&L report and knowing how to use that information. It can be practicing how to drive a stick shift until it becomes second nature. Training is an incredibly valuable part of learning.

But it is also a term that can be reductive, or an oversimplification of what is required by and for the learner. When I think about my own journey to become a more empathetic leader, I don’t think of it as training, because the work goes beyond just acquiring the skills I need. I also need to learn how to apply those skills in meaningful ways. 

So what distinguishes learning & development (L&D)? To me, the clue is right there in the words we’re using: learning means “gaining knowledge or understanding,” and development means “to promote the growth of.” For instance, when I think about how to become the leader that my team deserves, I have knowledge gaps that I need to close (learning). At the same time, I have to unlearn behaviors that get in my way (learning). And I know that this is work that I will always be doing in some way in order to continue to grow and develop my skills as a leader (development).

Let me give you an example of what this looks like in my life: I know A LOT of different methodologies for giving feedback. These include: SBI (Situation, Behavior, Impact) and the very similar STAR method; Radical Candor; The Feedback Sandwich; and 360-degree feedback. Let’s just say that 15+ years in L&D exposes you to a lot of different feedback models. I know the tips. I can recall the tricks. But when feeling out how to give feedback to my new team at Studio 5, I choked. I had been trained on what they were, but I hadn’t learned how to apply them. 

Then a colleague gave me this advice: Ask your team how they want to receive feedback from you. And a lightbulb went off, because with that one sentence I learned how to apply what I knew. I could use any of those frameworks at any time! I learned that the differentiator wasn’t a choice that I made, it was a choice that my direct report makes. That one new piece of information changed how I applied the knowledge I had gained.

* * * * *

Why does the distinction between L&D and training matter? Let’s go back to my interaction with my colleague:

Them: What you’re creating is training.

Me: No, what I’m creating is learning & development.

What was the truth? Honestly, it was both. 

New managers coming into the organization did have a huge tactical element to their jobs. They needed to know how our software worked, how to read the reports that allowed them to make decisions, and what processes existed to support their teams. They needed to be trained on the systems that were set up that allowed them to do their jobs.

But many of these folks were experienced managers, who also needed to have their previous knowledge honored. Many of them knew how to create staffing plans, give feedback, and support the development of their teams. What I—and many stakeholders involved in the project—also wanted them to do was to learn and develop how to be leaders, not just managers. How to lead with kindness and empathy, in a way that was uniquely attuned to the culture of the business they had joined.

So here we have two people with a shared purpose: we both want the new managers to succeed. In my colleague’s view, we needed to train them. In my view, we needed to develop them. We’re both right, but we only have these people for a limited amount of time before they have to go and do their jobs. So what takes priority? How do we architect the content in a way that will best serve the needs of the learners? Where do we put emphasis? How do we spend this time?

Sometimes, all it takes is a shared acknowledgment of what we’re trying to accomplish to make all the difference in how learning assets are created. Many would (rightly) ask, “Well, shouldn’t that come out in the discovery process? If we’re doing our due diligence when we analyze the need, then whether we call it training or L&D becomes a semantic issue, right?”

I wish that were the case. I really, really do. But so many times I’ve been approached with a “training problem” that is actually an L&D issue. The challenge is not that the client or stakeholder doesn't know the process, it’s that they don’t have the mindset to be successful. And when they come to the table with the idea that they “need training,” they are already closing off other avenues toward success. 

As with so much in this field, there is no black-and-white answer to this challenge. My hope is that by shining a light on the idea that there is a distinction, and that it can influence how you approach solving problems, we will more quickly align and be able to do the thing we all want to do: make our learners successful.

To close out, I’ll leave you with this question: When you get a new project, how will the distinction between “training” and “learning & development” influence or inform both your design and how you interact with stakeholders?