The Two Views of Learning and Development

When it comes to Learning and Development (L&D), there are usually two very different ways people see it.

On one side, L&D is viewed as a process — a careful and structured journey that includes needs analysis, stakeholder engagement, strategy, planning, instructional design, delivery, and evaluation. Each step has a purpose. Each step ensures that learning is relevant, engaging, and capable of delivering real business outcomes. This is the professional view: L&D as a discipline that directly supports organisational performance.

On the other side, many organisations still see L&D as a transaction. The thinking goes something like this: “We need learning. Let’s buy a course, roll it out, and deliver it.” Simple. Quick. But often ineffective.

The difference between the two is not just academic — it’s practical, and it shows up in results.

The Professional Process

When L&D is approached holistically, it starts with understanding needs. What skills, behaviours, or knowledge gaps exist? What is the organisation actually trying to achieve? From there, practitioners engage with stakeholders to align learning with strategy. Instructional designers shape experiences that connect with learners, while facilitators and trainers bring them to life. Importantly, there’s also evaluation: measuring whether learning has made a difference and what needs adjusting.

This process may sound complex, but it ensures that learning investments aren’t just events — they’re enablers of performance.

The Transactional Shortcut

The “we need learning, so let’s buy learning” approach skips all of that. It treats training as a box to tick. Courses are procured, scheduled, and delivered — sometimes with no real connection to business priorities, learner needs, or long-term development goals.

It’s a bit like going to the doctor, saying “I don’t feel well,” and being handed random medicine without an examination, diagnosis, or follow-up. Occasionally, it might work, but more often than not, it misses the point.

Why It Matters

The difference between the two approaches is the difference between learning as an investment and learning as a cost. The process-driven approach connects learning to outcomes, culture, and growth. The transactional approach often leads to disengaged learners, wasted budgets, and frustrated stakeholders who wonder why “training never works.”

Final Thought

Learning and development isn’t about simply providing courses. It’s about designing impact. That requires more than procurement — it requires expertise, collaboration, and a clear link between what people learn and what the organisation needs.

The next time someone says, “We need training,” the real question should be: “What do we need to achieve, and how can learning get us there?”