Imagine walking into a clothing store and being told there is only one size available. It doesn’t matter whether you’re tall or short, narrow or wide. Athletic or not. Male or female. Everyone gets the same shirt.
Most of us would immediately recognize the flaw in that approach.
Yet when it comes to professional education, we do it all the time.
Organizations spend significant amounts of money on training programs that were designed for everyone, then wonder why the results often feel generic. Employees complete the courses. Continuing education requirements are satisfied. Certificates are issued and HR is notified. Learning management systems show completion rates approaching 100%.
Then Monday arrives and the same performance gaps remain.
That doesn’t mean the training was bad. It simply means it may not have been designed for the people taking it.
As a long-time educator and now Provost, I’ve become increasingly convinced that one of the biggest mistakes organizations make is confusing educational activity with organizational improvement. Training is often treated as the solution when it is only a tool. The real objective is performance. Better decisions. Better communication. Better outcomes. Better consistency. Better leadership.
The question should never be, “What training should we buy?” The question should be, “What problem are we trying to solve?”
That distinction matters because every organization is different.
Even within workers’ compensation, two claims organizations can have nearly identical business models while facing completely different challenges. One may struggle with internal communication while the other struggles with communicating to injured workers and employers. One may struggle with medical management while the other may need better understanding of psychosocial risk factors. One may be experiencing rapid growth as a startup while the other has maintained steady growth for decades. One may be in a single jurisdiction while the other is spread out all over the country. One may only manage work comp claims while the other covers all P&C claims with work comp only being a small piece.
Regardless of their differences, both organizations may purchase the exact same training and then wonder why the results are underwhelming.
The issue is not the quality of the content. The issue is relevance.
Adult learning science tells us that people learn best when they can immediately connect information to their daily responsibilities. The closer the learning experience is to the learner’s actual environment, the greater the likelihood that new knowledge will be applied. That is one reason why generic, not tailored, education frequently struggles to produce meaningful behavior changes.
People learn better when they can see themselves in the examples. It clicks more quickly and concretely when they recognize the challenges being discussed and understand exactly how the content connects to the decisions they make every day.
That is where customized education becomes so powerful.
It’s also the exact conversation we have with every organization before we design anything. We start with “What are you actually trying to fix.” Instead of starting with content, customized education starts with context:
- What are employees struggling with?
- What outcomes are not being achieved?
- What behaviors need to change?
- What skills need to improve?
Unfortunately, many organizations reverse that sequence. They start by selecting content and hope it addresses the problem. Hope is not a strategy.
Imagine a physician diagnosing a patient before conducting an assessment. Most of us would consider that irresponsible.
Yet organizations frequently prescribe training before diagnosing the performance issue they are trying to address. The training may be interesting, accurate, and filled with best practices. But if it doesn’t address the questions and issues the organization, department, or individual has, it doesn’t necessarily change outcomes.
Performance gaps are often symptoms rather than root causes. A claims organization may believe it has a communication problem when the real issue is confidence. A supervisor may believe employees need more technical training when they just need stronger critical thinking skills. A leadership team may focus on compliance when the underlying challenge is culture.
The most effective educational programs begin with discovery. Organizations that want to advance the capabilities of their team seek to understand not only what people need to know, but what people need to do differently. That shift moves the conversation away from content delivery and toward performance improvement, which is the point where education creates an ROI.
This becomes increasingly important as organizations navigate rapid change. Artificial intelligence, workforce shortages, multiple generations in the workforce, regulatory complexity, behavioral health concerns and advancement of presumptions, and increasing medical sophistication and options are reshaping workers’ compensation. The challenges facing organizations today are rarely solved through information alone and are not static (what you need today may not be what you need tomorrow).
That is why educational customization is no longer a luxury but a necessity.
The organizations that thrive over the next decade will not necessarily be those with the largest training budgets. They will be the organizations that most effectively align learning with organizational objectives. They will understand that education is not an event. It is a strategic investment in performance that is customized for each learner.
A claims adjuster experiences different challenges than a claims supervisor or the call-center customer service person. A nurse case manager requires different skills than an attorney. A physician needs different information than an employer. A newcomer has more basic needs than a long-tenured professional, but both need ongoing development. While certain foundational concepts may apply broadly, meaningful improvement often requires greater precision.
People do not learn in a vacuum. They learn within the context of their responsibilities.
Here’s a simple question to ask before deciding on a professional development strategy: “What would success look like six months after this training?”
I’m guessing that the correct answer is not “people completed the course.”
Instead, leaders would describe the desired outcomes (that are identified during the discovery phase):
- Better communication
- Stronger decision-making
- Improved consistency
- Higher engagement
- Reduced turnover
- Faster recovery
- Better claim outcomes
Some of those are subjective while others are tangibly measured and objectively assessed. However, none of them are limited to the acquisition of knowledge. They are all focused on the application of knowledge. And not just generic knowledge, but the kind of knowledge that makes the learner more effective.
That perspective changes how training should be designed, delivered, and evaluated. Instead of measuring attendance, we measure application. Instead of focusing solely on knowledge transfer, we focus on behavior change. Instead of asking whether people enjoyed the training, we ask whether they are performing differently because of it.
That is a much higher, more meaningful standard.
Off-the-shelf education will always have an important place. Foundational knowledge matters. Shared terminology matters. Common frameworks matter. To be clear, not every learning experience needs to be customized.
However, every organization has its own culture, challenges, strengths, blind spots, and opportunities. Those differences matter.
The most effective educational experiences are not the ones that provide the most information. They are the ones that create the most meaningful and lasting change that positively influences the effectiveness of an individual, department, product, workflow, or entire organization. They help people think differently, communicate differently, and ultimately perform differently.
If the goal is better outcomes, shouldn’t the learning experience be designed around how your team actually works rather than how someone assumes they work?
If you’re not sure how to answer that for your own organization, that’s a conversation worth having. Here’s where to start.
