Corporate Training Gone Wrong and Why It Fails You and Your Employees
- Brainz Magazine
- 9 hours ago
- 7 min read
Constantine Kourakis is the driving force behind professional transformation. He is interested in the themes of leadership, process innovation, open communication, knowledge culture and continuous professional development (CPD).
The impact of corporate training on organisational success is undeniable. eLearning Consultant Devlin Peck highlights that companies are 17% more productive when employees receive the training they need and want. HR managers agree that training is beneficial for talent attraction, upskilling and retention. In contrast, poor corporate training diminishes business performance, financial outcomes and employee morale. TeamStage claimed in 2024 that, on average, companies waste $13,500 on inefficient training per employee. Why is it so hard for the corporate training and learning gurus to get it right?
In my first piece, I introduced the Dogme method as a tool for managers to improve their managerial skills. In this post, second in the series on the improvement of management and corporate culture, I discuss the misunderstood, ill-executed and underestimated topic of corporate training. The notion of “professional development”, defined as the wider range of abilities and knowledge geared towards long-term career advancement, is beyond the scope of this article.
For the purposes of this discussion, I have adopted the generally accepted definition of corporate training (proposed by Noe et al., 2014) as a form of learning aimed at improving an employee’s skill set and knowledge and will consider training from the new hires and current employees’ perspective.
Forget the budget
Let’s dispel the misconception that budget constraints and limited tech resources are major barriers to effective learning outcomes and employee engagement. Having worked across a spectrum of organisations, I’ve seen first-hand how corporate training can go wrong. I’ve watched companies pour significant budgets into cybersecurity modules, only to suffer a breach months later. I’ve witnessed two project managers give contradictory guidance to the same employee (myself), each convinced their version was the best practice.
The fact remains that when corporate training is fragmented, misaligned or perfunctory, it disrupts operations and business excellence.
Below I discuss seven popular training approaches. Read why your current corporate training is likely to risk and inhibits employee engagement, smooth cross-functional collaboration and overall company performance.
1. The ‘online training modules’ plague
Global companies take pride in their learning management systems (LMS) they have put in place for their workforce. While LMS adoption is at an all-time high, a 2024 Axonify survey concluded that a significant 43% of employees find formal training ineffective, underscoring the gap between implementation and impact.
This reliance on LMS platforms has become a silent epidemic—widespread among large, profitable companies and fuelled by the unchecked proliferation of online training modules.
Employees are requested to complete hundreds of online modules, each divided into multiple sections, usually followed by a quiz. Each module, in turn, belongs to a specific training theme e.g. software/tools, cybersecurity, ethics, etc. The result? This overload leads to cognitive fatigue, disengagement, and a “check-the-box” mentality the defeats the very purpose of training. Employees rush through modules to meet compliance deadlines rather than absorb knowledge that enhances their performance or decision-making.
This phenomenon is part of what some experts call the “productivity paradox”, where increased investment in digital learning tools doesn’t necessarily translate into improved workforce capability or efficiency. A 2024 report by VK Creative Learning highlights how many LMS platforms offer one-size-fits-all content that overlooks skill gaps, learning styles, and real-time application.
2. The ‘on-the-job training’ quick fix
This quick fix is often promoted as a pragmatic, ‘we-do-things-differently-here’ approach to team training. But is it truly the effective, agile solution it’s made out to be? Or does it reflect a rather disorganised modus operandi where the managers in charge fail to take responsibility for, and invest in, structured, formalised training?
In practice, on-the-job training frequently lacks coherence. It’s usually reactive rather than strategic, driven by immediate needs and unpredictable challenges rather than long-term goals. With no clear benchmarks, progress tracking, or consistent oversight, it becomes difficult to measure outcomes or ensure knowledge retention. Additionally, this form of training hinders managerial accountability and makes it easier for top-level managers to lose visibility of their staff training progress, goals and development.
3. The ‘prep talk’ with the unprepped line manager
Line management training is the predominant form of training offered in the first weeks or months in smaller companies, start-ups or scale-ups. It may be promoted as the hallmark of a casual culture, but it actually reflects the lack of a comprehensive, formalised training programme.
Such training meetings with the line manager suffer from a lack of structure and clearly set learning goals. They are frequently subject to each line manager’s own preferences, perceived priorities and availability, including any last-minute agenda changes and scheduling conflicts. It is not uncommon for the training manager to show up underprepared, failing to respond to the actual work priorities.
This informal approach not only undermines the employee’s onboarding experience but also erodes accountability. Without a centralised system to track training milestones, progress, or development goals, organisations lose visibility into how—or whether—employees are being equipped to succeed. As with the unstructured on-the-job training, the result is a fragmented learning journey that fails to scale or sustain.
From the trainer’s perspective, there are line managers who may be poorly trained or feel ill-equipped to handle key responsibilities, leading to high staff turnover, disengagement, and inconsistent onboarding experiences.
4. The ‘learn from your colleagues’ randomness
Normally adopted by companies without a central LMS, it allows training supervisors and line managers to delegate certain aspects of essential company knowledge transfer and acquisition to colleagues from other departments. This method may have the potential for facilitating a smoother cross-functional collaboration, fostering a more realistic learning experience.
However, it brings with it two inherent risks: a) How to choose the right colleague to train the new hire or current team? Should the manager choose someone less knowledgeable but more aligned and easier to supervise? Or entrust the task to a more experienced peer with whom alignment is inconsistent or strained? This dilemma often leads to compromises that undermine the quality and consistency of training.
Second, according to empirical and anecdotal evidence, the colleague assigned to train may be ill-prepared or even unaware of their role. Without clear communication from the training manager regarding expectations, objectives and timelines, the new hire may encounter reluctance, vague guidance, or repeated delays. The result is a fragmented learning experience that slows down integration and may expose businesses to operational or legal risks.
This informal, decentralised model may seem agile on the surface, but without structure, accountability, and oversight, it risks becoming a bottleneck rather than a bridge.
5. The ‘training buddy’ programme
Peer-to-peer knowledge and skill transfer is arguably the least problematic of the training formats discussed here. While leveraging a seasoned employee’s experience and skill set to train new hires or their less experienced colleagues can be a solid and viable approach, there are two key factors to consider:
Firstly, top performers aren’t always the best communicators, nor are they always willing to take on a mentoring role. The assumption that excellence in execution translates into excellence in instruction is flawed—and often leads to mismatched pairings or reluctant trainers.
Secondly, this format lacks transparency and oversight. The line between objective company knowledge and personal interpretation is easily blurred. Without a structured framework or clear documentation, it becomes difficult to assess what has been taught, how consistently it’s delivered, or whether the training has met its intended goals—even when supported by a checklist.
6. The ‘why-am-I-here’ nightmare
This is the cardinal sin of corporate training: an endless stream of data-heavy, repetitive, preachy meetings, presentations, online modules, videos, slides, PDFs, and checklists—bombarding employees with information that is, above all, irrelevant to their actual work. It’s not training; it’s noise disguised as learning.
When employees are forced to complete training with little relevance to their job responsibilities and realise the misalignment with their actual organisational duties, goals and challenges, this inevitably leads to staff resistance. Employee resistance means that the workforce will ignore any content perceived as meaningless. Essentially, they will refuse to adopt and internalise new behaviours and training take-aways that are crucial to their performance and company integrity. This is particularly prevalent among more seasoned employees who consider training a disruption to their daily agenda and a waste of time. Zion Lee (2023) further discusses the concept of employee resistance in his research paper.
7. No preflight check, no follow-up
In aviation, preflight inspection is a non-negotiable procedure involving a visual and functional check to verify that the aircraft is fit to fly. In the corporate world, this would correspond to a thorough needs and skills gap analysis, including the assessment of the role-specific requirements, before the commissioning and launch of the course. Yet, in practice, these “preflight” checks are often rushed or overlooked, leading to training programs that never truly get off the ground.
Just as concerning is what happens post-launch. According to Edstellar’s guide to measuring training ROI, few companies follow up to assess whether employees have internalised the intended knowledge or whether the training was genuinely effective. Without measuring impact, there’s no way to capture the return on investment—only the illusion of progress.
How can you successfully address your failing approach to training?
Transforming the way we conceptualise and implement training is vital. In the next piece, I will be discussing potential solutions to overcome these challenges.
Corporate training, if done 1) methodically, 2) pragmatically and 3) by the right person, can be a huge drive of ROI, bringing short-, mid- and long-term benefits to the company’s human assets and the organisation itself.
Stay tuned. Till then, get in touch with ZeNous to explore the training options that are applicable to your own context and will drive your team’s sustainable success.
Follow me on LinkedIn, and visit my LinkedIn for more info!
Read more from Constantine Kourakis
Constantine Kourakis, Business Transformation Trainer
A prime example of transformation, Constantine's career spans two global translation companies, one CRO, one NGO, three language schools and one healthtech scale-up —and all this, across four countries. He quit his role in Barcelona to go rogue, aspiring to get more field knowledge and job satisfaction despite the uncertainty of the freelancing space. An advocate of the power of saying “No”, he rejected the Academic Manager position he was offered in Brighton to focus on his real needs and wants. After moving to Amsterdam, he resumed corporate roles to grow, network and learn new skills. In a liberating move, he let go of his 9-5 routine to create ZeNous and provide language support, corporate training and performance improvement insights.
