Learning and development has never had more tools available to it. Organisations have learning management systems, enormous libraries of digital content, virtual classrooms, podcasts, AI, microlearning and increasingly sophisticated learning platforms.
And yet many organisations are still asking a fundamental question:
Is all this learning activity actually making people better at their jobs?
That is the question we believe should sit at the heart of an effective learning and development strategy.
L&D should not be measured simply by how much learning an organisation provides, how many courses employees attend or how many modules they complete. The real test is whether people are developing the capabilities the organisation needs and whether learning is translating into better performance.
This FAQ looks at some of the questions HR and L&D practitioners should be asking as they develop their learning strategy.
What is an L&D strategy?
A learning and development strategy sets out how an organisation will build the skills, knowledge, behaviours and capabilities it needs to deliver its business strategy, both now and in the future.
It is not a training calendar, a list of courses or a catalogue of content on a learning management system (LMS). A good L&D strategy starts with the organisation.
Where is the organisation going? What is changing? What does it need its people to be able to do? What capabilities already exist? Where are the gaps? What is preventing people from performing as required? Only then should we ask what learning interventions might help.
This distinction matters because not every performance problem is a learning problem. Poor processes, unclear accountability, inadequate resources, organisational structure, workload, management behaviour and lack of performance management can all affect performance. Training someone will not resolve a problem that training did not cause.
The CIPD similarly positions L&D strategy as part of overall business strategy and emphasises alignment between learning, organisational objectives and performance.
At Insight HR, our starting point is therefore: What does this organisation need its people to be better able to do?
Why do HR and L&D functions sometimes work in silos?
HR and L&D can become disconnected when learning is treated as a specialist service rather than an integral part of the wider people and business strategy. That separation can significantly weaken L&D.
HR is often sitting on extraordinarily valuable information about organisational capability. Recruitment tells us which skills are difficult to find. Performance management tells us where managers and employees are struggling. Employee relations issues expose recurring management problems. Engagement data tells us about the employee experience. Succession planning highlights future capability risks. Exit interviews may identify weaknesses in management. Organisational change tells us what capabilities will be required next. L&D needs access to that intelligence.
Equally, HR should not simply contact L&D and ask for a course every time a problem emerges. The better conversation is: What is happening, why is it happening and what intervention is most likely to make a difference?
Current CIPD guidance emphasises collaboration with stakeholders across the business as critical to successful L&D strategy.
Is L&D seen as too ‘fluffy’ by CEOs, senior leadership teams and C-suite executives?
Sometimes. The problem is often not that learning lacks business value, but that L&D struggles to describe its contribution in the language of the business.
Learning hours, attendance rates, course completion and satisfaction scores may be important operational measures. They are unlikely, on their own, to convince a CEO that L&D is contributing to organisational performance. Senior executives are more likely to be discussing growth, productivity, risk, transformation, customer experience, retention, succession, performance and execution. L&D needs to be part of those conversations.
If an organisation is experiencing high employee turnover under newly appointed managers, for example, the conversation should not begin with: “We would like a budget for management training.” It should begin with the business issue. What is happening? What is it costing? What evidence suggests management capability is contributing to it? What behaviours need to change? What intervention could help? What evidence would demonstrate improvement?
L&D becomes more strategically credible when it can make that connection.
Is AI changing the focus of learning and development?
Yes. AI is changing both what people need to learn and how organisations can deliver learning. But its biggest impact may be forcing L&D to reconsider where human capability creates value.
AI can already provide employees with information, generate content, answer questions and support personalised learning at extraordinary speed. That creates an interesting challenge for L&D. If an employee can access information at the point of need, how much time should organisations spend teaching people to remember information they can retrieve in seconds? The greater development need may increasingly be the ability to question, interpret, judge, communicate, solve problems and apply information appropriately. For managers, that matters enormously.
AI can help a manager draft a difficult email. It cannot take responsibility for the judgement behind the decision, understand every nuance of an employee relationship or replace the human skills required to conduct a difficult conversation effectively.
The strategic question for L&D is therefore not simply: How can we use AI to create more learning?
It is: What do our people need to become better at because AI is changing the work they do?
Current workplace-learning research reflects the growing connection between AI adoption, skills development and organisational adaptability.
Why does L&D sometimes have a bad reputation?
L&D develops a poor reputation when employees experience learning as something done to them rather than something that helps them perform, develop or progress.
Think about how employees can experience workplace learning. Another mandatory module. Another generic course. Another video that cannot be skipped. Another quiz where the correct answer is obvious. Another annual refresher covering information they already know.
Then organisations wonder why employees are not excited about learning. The problem is not necessarily that employees dislike development.
They may dislike irrelevant learning.
L&D also damages its credibility when training becomes the default solution to organisational problems. If the real issue is poor management, an ineffective process or lack of accountability, sending everybody on a course can become organisational theatre rather than organisational development.
The question should always be: What problem are we trying to solve?
How does a standalone HR Manager develop an L&D strategy?
A standalone HR Manager does not need a large L&D department to develop an effective learning strategy. Start with the business priorities and identify the capabilities required to deliver them.
For smaller organisations, the process can be relatively straightforward.
Understand the business plan. Talk to the CEO and managers about what will change over the next two or three years. Review performance information, recruitment challenges, succession risks, employee feedback and recurring HR issues.
Then ask: What must people be able to do that they cannot consistently do today?
Prioritise those capability gaps rather than trying to solve everything simultaneously.
CIPD guidance on learning needs analysis similarly starts with identifying current and future organisational capability requirements and assessing existing knowledge, skills and attitudes.
A good L&D strategy can fit on a few pages. Its quality is determined by the thinking behind it, not its length.
HR practitioners are already pressed for time. Can’t the LMS provide the learning strategy?
No. An LMS can support an L&D strategy, but it cannot replace one.
An LMS is infrastructure. It can host content, distribute learning, record completion, provide data and potentially recommend content. AI will undoubtedly make these systems increasingly sophisticated.
But an LMS cannot independently determine what capabilities your organisation needs to deliver its strategy. Nor should the existence of thousands of courses be confused with having a learning strategy.
A library containing 10,000 courses may give employees enormous choice. It does not tell them which capabilities matter most to your organisation, which behaviours need to change or whether a course is the appropriate solution.
The LMS should serve the learning strategy. The learning strategy should not be dictated by the LMS.
Why are LMS platforms often unpopular with employees?
Employees often dislike LMS learning when it is time-consuming, generic, difficult to navigate or disconnected from the work they actually do. The problem is not always the LMS itself; it is often the learning experience built around it.
Technology and usability certainly matter. Research has linked LMS system quality and adaptive learning with user satisfaction and engagement.
But content matters too. If employees associate the LMS primarily with mandatory modules, repetitive content and courses they have been instructed to complete rather than learning they actively value, the platform can quickly become associated with compliance rather than development.
The solution is not necessarily another LMS. It may be better content.
Why does compliance training on an LMS frustrate so many employees?
Compliance training becomes frustrating when completion becomes more important than learning.
There are legitimate reasons why organisations need employees to understand policies, legal obligations, health and safety requirements, regulatory requirements and expected standards of behaviour. But there is a difference between demonstrating that somebody completed a module and demonstrating that they understand what to do.
A 2025 OCEG™ Survey on the State of Compliance & Ethics Training found that organisations overwhelmingly measured training activity rather than training impact, while time constraints and continued reliance on generic approaches remained significant challenges.
Compliance learning should therefore ask:
- What does this employee actually need to know?
- What do they need to recognise?
- What decisions might they have to make?
- When should they escalate an issue?
That lends itself naturally to scenarios, decision points and realistic workplace situations rather than simply transferring policy wording onto a screen.
Why is the same compliance training provided every year?
Sometimes refresher training is necessary or required, but repeating identical content annually should not automatically be confused with effective learning.
Where recurring training is required, organisations should consider whether the learning experience can evolve.
- Could an experienced employee complete a knowledge check first?
- Could the refresher focus on what has changed?
- Could employees work through new scenarios rather than repeat the same presentation?
- Could learning be tailored according to role or level of responsibility?
- Could managers receive deeper content than employees because they need to know how to respond when an issue arises?
The appropriate approach will depend on the subject and any legal, regulatory or organisational requirements. But the learning principle remains the same:
Repetition alone does not guarantee understanding or behavioural change.
Can we really expect employees to self-direct their learning?
We can encourage self-directed learning, but organisations should be cautious about transferring responsibility for organisational capability entirely to employees.
Giving employees access to a large learning library does not automatically create a learning culture.
People need time. They need relevance. They need to understand which capabilities matter. Managers need to encourage development and create opportunities for people to apply what they learn.
There is also a distinction between personal development and organisational capability.
Employees can and should take ownership of their careers. But if an organisation knows it needs stronger management capability, greater AI literacy or better customer-service skills, it cannot simply upload content, and hope employees decide to learn it.
LinkedIn’s 2025 Workplace Learning Report found career progress was a leading motivation for workplace learning, highlighting the importance of connecting development with meaningful career opportunities rather than simply providing access to content.
How do I identify what learning my organisation actually needs?
Start with performance and capability, not with a training-needs questionnaire asking employees what courses they would like.
A useful learning needs analysis should consider organisational strategy, future skills, performance information, customer feedback, employee feedback, recruitment difficulties, succession risks, employee relations trends and the observations of managers and employees.
Then distinguish between:
- What people need to know.
- What people need to be able to do.
- What behaviours need to change.
- What organisational barriers are preventing performance.
Only some of those gaps will require formal training.
Current CIPD guidance explicitly recommends considering different ways of addressing performance gaps rather than automatically defaulting to a course.
Why is it so difficult to get budget for L&D?
L&D budgets can be difficult to secure when learning is presented as a cost rather than as a response to a clearly defined business problem.
A request for €30,000 to run a management development programme immediately invites a question about cost. Start somewhere else.
Perhaps managers have been promoted because they were excellent technical performers but have received little preparation for managing people. Grievances are increasing. Performance issues are not being addressed. Employee turnover has increased. Senior HR employees are spending significant time resolving problems that should have been managed earlier.
Now there is a business problem.
The question becomes whether improving management capability is part of the solution and what intervention would be most effective.
Don’t start by defending the training budget. Start by demonstrating the problem the investment is intended to address.
How do I build a business case for L&D investment?
A strong L&D business case connects a defined organisational problem with a capability gap, a proposed intervention, expected outcomes and a credible method of measuring whether anything changed.
A simple sequence is:
Business problem → evidence → capability gap → options → proposed intervention → cost → expected change → measurement.
It is also important to consider alternatives.
Could the problem be resolved through clearer processes? Better management information? Coaching? Job redesign? Performance management? Technology? Recruitment? Being willing to conclude that training is not the answer can actually strengthen L&D’s credibility.
Current strategic L&D standards specifically recognise the importance of building a business case, considering alternative options, assessing benefits and financial implications and gaining stakeholder support.
How can L&D get greater buy-in from the CEO and senior leadership team?
Talk less about learning activity and more about organisational performance.
Do not expect a CEO to become passionate about instructional design. Find out what the CEO is already concerned about.
Growth? Productivity? Customer retention? Management capability? Succession? Risk? Employee turnover? AI adoption? Organisational change? Then demonstrate where capability is helping or hindering that agenda.
L&D becomes much harder to dismiss as “fluffy” when it is addressing something the leadership team already regards as commercially or organisationally important.
How do I design an effective learning intervention?
Start with what people need to do differently, not with what content you want to teach them. That sounds obvious, but it changes the design process. If managers need to become better at managing difficult conversations, for example, simply explaining the organisation’s performance-management policy is unlikely to be enough.
They may need to observe an effective conversation, analyse scenarios, practise language, receive feedback, discuss difficult cases and then apply the learning in their own workplace. The learning objective should drive the method.
CIPD guidance similarly emphasises choosing learning methods according to the needs of individuals, teams and organisations and their contribution to capability and performance.
What options do I have when designing learning interventions?
Training courses are only one learning intervention. Effective L&D can combine formal, informal, digital, experiential and workplace-based learning.
Depending on the objective, organisations might use face-to-face training, virtual workshops, e-learning, coaching, mentoring, job shadowing, stretch assignments, action learning, reflective practice, simulations, case studies, peer learning, podcasts, videos, manager-led conversations, performance-support tools or blended programmes. The mistake is choosing the format first.
Start with the outcome. Then choose the intervention.
When is face-to-face or classroom training the most appropriate route?
Face-to-face learning is particularly valuable when people need to discuss, practice, challenge assumptions, receive feedback or work through complex situations together.
Digital learning has enormous advantages. It can be scalable, accessible, flexible and cost-effective.
But face-to-face learning has not become obsolete simply because digital alternatives exist. Current CIPD material continues to recognise face-to-face, online tutor-led and self-directed approaches as different learning options, while its learning-methods guidance emphasises choosing methods according to the need.
Management development is a good example.
You can learn the principles of giving feedback online. It is much harder to develop confidence in handling a defensive employee without practising the conversation.
Where interaction itself is part of the capability being developed, classroom learning can be extremely powerful.
Can podcasts be an effective form of workplace learning?
Yes. Podcasts can be an excellent learning resource for exposing employees to ideas, expert perspectives, different experiences and reflective thinking, particularly when they are incorporated into a wider learning experience.
Their great advantage is accessibility. People can listen while travelling, walking or at a time that suits them. But listening is not necessarily learning. If organisations want to use podcasts strategically, they can curate episodes around specific capability areas and add reflection questions, discussion guides, team conversations or follow-up activities. For example, managers might listen to a discussion about trust, then meet to consider what builds or damages trust within their own teams and what they will do differently. The podcast provides the stimulus. Reflection and application create the learning.
Should management development be a programme or a one-day training course?
It depends on the outcome. A customised training day can be highly effective for a defined learning need, while sustained behavioural and management development will often benefit from a programme delivered over time.
A manager who needs to understand how to conduct an effective probation meeting may benefit considerably from a focused practical workshop. Developing someone into a confident people manager is different. That may require learning around communication, feedback, performance, conflict, employee relations, decision-making and change, with opportunities to practice, apply, reflect and return to the group. The important question is not which format is fashionable. It is how much development is required to achieve the intended change?
What is reflective practice for managers?
Reflective practice gives managers structured time to examine real workplace situations, question their assumptions, consider different perspectives and decide what they might do differently.
Managers routinely deal with situations where there is no perfect answer. A team member becomes disengaged. Two employees are in conflict. A previously strong performer starts struggling. A manager has to implement an unpopular change. Experienced managers do not necessarily need another presentation telling them how management works. Sometimes they need space to think.
Facilitated reflective-practice or action-learning sessions allow managers to bring genuine workplace challenges into a structured, confidential environment where questioning and peer perspectives help them develop their own judgement. That is development at a very different level from simply transferring knowledge.
Should I try to be creative when developing LMS content?
Yes, but creativity should make learning clearer, more relevant or more memorable. It should never become an objective in itself.
Video, animation, storytelling, scenarios, quizzes, branching decisions and interactive elements can all improve digital learning. But an animated 45-minute module containing irrelevant information is still an irrelevant 45-minute module. Sometimes the best learning asset might be a three-minute video explaining exactly what a manager should do when an employee raises a concern. Good LMS design asks:
What is the simplest and most engaging way to help this person understand, remember or apply what matters?
What kind of content works best on an LMS?
LMS content works best when it is relevant, focused, easy to navigate and designed around what the learner needs to know or do rather than everything the subject-matter expert wants to tell them.
Different objectives require different formats. Short videos can demonstrate a behaviour. Scenarios can test judgement. Knowledge checks can identify gaps. Infographics can provide quick reference. Longer modules can develop understanding where the subject warrants it. Downloadable manager guides can support application at the point of need. The challenge is not getting everything you know onto the LMS. The challenge is deciding what the learner actually needs.
Does all LMS content need to be microlearning?
No. Shorter does not automatically mean better. The length and format should be determined by the learning objective.
There is considerable value in making digital learning concise. But complex subjects sometimes require context, explanation, practice and reflection. A two-minute resource may be perfect for reminding a manager what steps to take before a probation meeting. It is unlikely to develop the broader capability required to manage poor performance confidently. Microlearning is a tool, not a learning strategy.
Is it worth developing customised content for an LMS?
Yes, particularly where organisational context, policies, culture, processes or local legislation materially affect what employees or managers need to do.
Generic content has an important role and can be extremely cost-effective. But consider a global manager programme covering performance management, absence, bullying and harassment, grievances and disciplinary matters. The broad management principles may travel well across borders. The employment context may not. Customised content allows organisations to use their own terminology, policies, values, scenarios and processes and to explain what employees and managers are expected to do in that organisation.
The result should feel less like: “Here is a course we have been told to complete.”
And more like: “This is how we do things here.”
When should organisations develop Irish-specific LMS and management learning content?
Irish-specific content is particularly valuable where managers need to apply learning within Irish employment practices, procedures and workplace expectations. This can be particularly important in multinational organisations using global learning content. Subjects might include managing performance, absence, dignity at work, bullying and harassment, grievances, disciplinary processes, equality, recruitment and other employee-relations matters. That does not mean every global programme needs to be rebuilt for Ireland.
Sometimes the better solution is to retain excellent global content and add targeted Irish modules, manager guidance, scenarios or resources. The aim is not to turn managers into employment lawyers. It is to help them understand their responsibilities, recognise when an issue is emerging, manage appropriately and know when to involve HR.
Why doesn’t good training always result in better performance?
Because learning transfer depends on what happens after the training as well as what happens during it.
An employee can attend an excellent programme, leave highly motivated and return to a workplace where there is no opportunity to practice the skill, their manager does not reinforce it, existing systems encourage different behaviour, or operational pressure immediately takes precedence. The learning then disappears. This is why managers have such an important role in L&D.
Before the intervention: Why are you attending and what do we expect you to develop? Afterwards: What did you learn? What will you apply? What support do you need? When will we review it? Learning becomes far more powerful when it moves from the classroom into everyday work.
How do I measure the impact of an L&D intervention?
Start by defining what should be different after the intervention. Then measure that, rather than relying solely on attendance, completion or satisfaction data.
If the purpose was to improve managers’ ability to address poor performance, what evidence might demonstrate improvement? Are conversations happening earlier? Are managers more confident? Has the quality of documentation improved? Are fewer issues escalating unnecessarily to HR? Are employees clearer about performance expectations?
Some interventions justify financial ROI analysis. Others are better evaluated through behavioural, performance, risk, quality or employee measures. CIPD’s current evaluation guidance emphasises linking evaluation to identified performance gaps and business objectives. The most useful evaluation question is often surprisingly simple:
What did we want people to do differently – and are they doing it?
How can Insight HR help with L&D strategy and learning design?
Insight HR helps organisations move from providing training to deliberately building the capabilities their people and managers need.
We can work with organisations to develop an L&D strategy, identify learning and capability needs and determine where learning will have the greatest organisational impact.
We also design customised management development programmes for organisations that want to build management capability over time, as well as bespoke one-day training programmes where there is a specific development need.
For organisations using an LMS, we can develop customised Irish-specific learning content, particularly in areas where managers and employees need practical guidance relevant to the Irish workplace on topics such as dignity at work.
We also facilitate reflective practice and action-learning sessions for managers, creating structured opportunities for managers to work through genuine workplace challenges and develop their judgement through questioning, reflection and peer discussion.
Our wider work across HR, employee relations, workplace investigations, organisational development and change means that our learning is grounded in the issues organisations and managers encounter in practice.
We do not believe the starting question should be: “What training should we run this year?”
A better place to start is: “What does our organisation need people to be better able to do?”
If you are developing your L&D strategy, reviewing management capability, redesigning an existing learning programme or looking for learning that reflects the realities of managing people in Ireland, talk to Insight HR about designing an approach around what your organisation actually needs.
