If there’s one concept I think we need to get really clear on right now as learning and development professionals, it’s this: Training is not the goal. Enablement is.
Those two terms are often used interchangeably, but they’re not the same, and the difference matters more than ever as training continues to move into the field.
The reality is, most of our operators are not trained trainers. They’re incredible at running operations. They know how to pivot when two people call out sick. They know how to keep the business moving under pressure. But understanding how adults learn, how to reinforce behavior over time, how to coach for performance – that’s not typically their background.
But today that’s exactly what we’re asking them to do. So, if training is going to live in the field, conducted by operations teams, then our responsibility in L&D shifts. We’re not just building training programs anymore. We need to be designing experiences that can be delivered effectively by people who don’t have a training background, in environments that are anything but controlled. We don’t need to lower our training standards, but we do need to meet operations where they are.
That means we have to let go of the idea that training will be executed perfectly every time. It won’t. It can’t. And honestly, it shouldn’t be designed that way in the first place.
Training doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It happens in the middle of a busy shift, with competing priorities and constant interruptions. So instead of designing for ideal conditions, we need to design for reality. And more importantly, we need to help our operators learn how to pivot on the training side the same way they already pivot on the operations side. That’s where enablement comes in.
I often think about it like the difference between service and hospitality. Service is the transaction, the execution of the actions. Hospitality is the experience. In the same way, training is the transaction that delivers information and builds skills. Enablement supports people in using what they’ve learned in a way that drives results.
Unfortunately, a lot of what we measure today in L&D still lives at that baseline transactional level. Completion rates. Smile sheets. Manager feedback. All of those things have value, but they don’t answer the question that really matters: did this make a difference to the business? Did we drive results?
One of the biggest reasons measuring ROI feels so hard for our industry is that we start in the wrong place. We start with, “We need a training program,” instead of asking, “What problem are we trying to solve?” and even more importantly, “Is training the right solution?”
And if it is, then the next question has to be: “How will we know we’ve been effective?”
That question changes everything. It shifts the conversation from activity to impact. It brings the right people into the room, and it can establish access to the data we need to measure results.
That’s also where I’ve found AI to be incredibly helpful. Not so much in building content – I don’t believe AI can replace effective Instructional Designers – but in helping make sense of data. I can take a set of metrics and quickly identify trends or problem areas that would have taken me hours to uncover on my own. It doesn’t replace my judgment; it helps me focus it.
What I keep coming back to is the idea that we are here to serve the business. Not in a support role that sits off to the side, but as a true partner in performance. And if we really embrace that, then training becomes something much bigger: not simply a task people complete to “check the box,” but an experience that actually enables them to succeed.
CHART Community Discussion