Why Most Corporate Trainings Bore Employees (and How to Fix It)

Corporate training programs are essential for employee development, but they often miss the mark.

Why does this happen? And how can it be fixed?

The Problem: Generic Training Programs

A major reason corporate training programs fail is that they often take a one-size-fits-all approach.

Trainers commonly assume that all employees have the same skill set and learning preferences, which leads to content that’s either too easy or too difficult for different individuals.

This mismatch results in disengagement. When training fails to meet their needs, employees stop paying attention, even though they may still value learning (Bersin, 2014).

A lack of personalization reduces training’s impact and diminishes its effectiveness (Grossman & Salas, 2011).

The Solution: Skill Gap Analysis

To solve this, the first step is a skill gap analysis.

This process helps identify the skills employees currently have and the ones they need to develop to meet business goals.

By understanding these gaps, companies can design more focused training programs that are directly relevant to employees’ needs.

For example, if a team needs to enhance its data analysis capabilities, the training can be directed toward that specific skill.

Similarly, employees who are poised to take on leadership roles can be trained in management and decision-making strategies (Tannenbaum, 1997).

Personalized, relevant training ensures employees are gaining practical skills.

Understanding Personality Types: Tailoring Training for Engagement

In addition to addressing skill gaps, effective training also considers employees’ varying personalities and learning styles.

The DISC personality model classifies people into four categories based on their behavior and preferences:

• Dominant (D): Goal-oriented and driven by results; prefers direct, fast-paced training.

• Influential (I): Social and thrives in interactive, group-oriented settings.

• Steady (S): Prefers calm, structured environments with detailed information.

• Conscientious (C): Enjoys clear, data-driven, and organized training.

  
  

  Recognizing these personality differences allows trainers to modify their approach, ensuring content resonates with each type.

  
  

  For example, “D” employees may find value in quick, result-focused lessons, while “I” employees will engage better with team activities or discussions.

  
  

  Tailoring training to match personality types boosts engagement and helps employees feel the training is relevant to their individual needs (Swailes, 2004).

  
  

Providing the Right Content

Once skill gaps and personality types are identified, providing the right content is crucial.

Microlearning — delivering information in short, digestible chunks — is effective in maintaining engagement without overwhelming employees.

These small modules can be accessed at any time, allowing learners to go at their own pace.

Additionally, gamification, interactive quizzes, and real-life case studies make the content more engaging and ensure that employees can apply what they’ve learned in practical settings (Anderson, 2014).

By using these formats, training becomes less of a chore and more of an engaging learning process.

Feedback: A Continuous Loop of Improvement

Feedback is a critical element of effective training.

Training programs should not be viewed as one-off events; rather, they should evolve based on continuous input.

Collecting feedback through surveys, interviews, or ratings helps trainers understand what worked and what didn’t.

This data is invaluable for refining and improving future training sessions. It also creates a culture of openness and continuous improvement (London, 2003).

Beyond the formal training session, providing employees with opportunities for self-paced learning ensures that training continues to support their development after the course ends.

Increasing Engagement: Making Training Relevant

Employee engagement in training is most effective when employees can see the direct benefits to their roles.

Personalized learning paths, based on skill gap analyses and DISC profiles, ensure training is relevant to each individual. Providing a variety of content formats and incorporating frequent feedback loops enhances the experience and keeps employees engaged.

Research supports the idea that learning is most effective when employees apply new skills in real-life contexts, as emphasized by the 70:20:10 model (Lombardo & Eichinger, 1996).

This model suggests that the majority of learning happens through on-the-job experiences, with training and peer interactions playing a secondary role.

Sources

• Anderson, C. A. (2014). The impact of gamification in education. Journal of Educational Technology, 2(1), 1–12.

• Bersin, J. (2014). The corporate learning factbook: Trends in corporate learning 2014. Bersin by Deloitte.

• Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120.

• Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (1996). The 70–20–10 model of learning and development. Center for Creative Leadership.

• London, M. (2003). Job feedback: Giving, seeking, and using feedback for performance improvement. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• Swailes, S. (2004). The DISC personality profile: Measuring and using personality differences in organizational settings. The Psychologist, 17(4), 212–215.

• Tannenbaum, S. I. (1997). Training and organizational performance: A review of the literature. In M. London (Ed.), Workplace learning: Debating the role of work in learning (pp. 205–224). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.