If you’ve been reading lately, you know my emotions have been clocking overtime. Then Monday morning brought a surprise to my inbox—the good kind. Somehow, I landed on Growth Engineering’s list of 25 L&D Voices Worth Following. That and five bucks might buy me a coffee. Still, it feels great to know someone thinks I’m adding value to our field. I’ll take the win and the coffee. Hope your week gave you something to smile about, too.

Thanks for reading!

🎵 Today I'm listening to Lord Huron​
​(another of my daughter's favs)

Supported by iSpring

AI can crank out content fast, but fast doesn’t always mean useful. That’s why this iSpring webinar with Frank Bergdoll caught my eye. Frank will show where AI can genuinely help course designers, where human judgment still needs to lead, and how to keep the ideas, context, and real learning experience from getting flattened into generic AI mush.

​Save your spot for the August 18 webinar →​

​
Five Studies That Made Me Stop Treating Everything as a Training Problem

When training fails, our first instinct is often to add something.

Another explanation. Another example. Another module. Maybe a quiz with three answers nobody could possibly get wrong.

But what if content isn’t the problem?

I recently reviewed 50 studies from psychology, behavioral science, and learning research. I chose them for their influence, historical value, and usefulness at work.

Several of them highlight that training isn't always the answer.

Here are five that changed how I think about performance.

Get the complete 50-study field guide

Want the other 45? I compiled all 50 studies, along with their limitations, workplace applications, and practical ideas, into a free field guide.

Also supported by Neovation

AI is great at grinding through the stuff nobody gets excited about: opening files, sorting inputs, spotting gaps, and turning messy piles of content into something you can actually work with. In this webinar, “AI-Assisted Content Intake and Gap Analysis,” you’ll see real workflows for using AI to clear the clutter while keeping the important decisions—structure, emphasis, judgment, and learner value where they belong: with you.

​Save your seat for August 19 →​

A layout problem can become a learning problem

Picture a diagram on one side of a screen and its explanation on the other. Your eyes bounce back and forth. Meanwhile, your brain tries to hold one piece in memory while searching for the next. That mental juggling has a cost. Paul Chandler and John Sweller called it the split-attention effect. When people must combine related information from different places, the layout itself can interfere with learning.

Split attention—and related attention problems—can appear when we:

• Put a legend far from the visual it explains
• Separate instructions from the task
• Make employees switch between systems to assemble one answer
• Show visuals that compete with the narration
• Add decoration that steals attention

The lesson is not “make everything shorter.” It is this:

Try this: Find one screen that separates information people must understand together. Put those pieces side by side—but don’t duplicate information that already makes sense on its own. ​

Remembering beats reviewing

Rereading feels productive.

The words look familiar. The page makes sense. We nod along and mistake recognition for mastery.

Then we need the information three days later—and it has vanished.

Henry Roediger and Jeffrey Karpicke compared repeated study with retrieval practice: asking people to recall what they had learned.

Repeated study performed better after a very short delay. Retrieval produced stronger retention later.

That difference matters.

A quiz should not be the inspection station at the end of a course. Used well, it can help create the learning.

Try this: Before reviewing something you have already taught, ask learners to recall it without looking. Then provide the correct answer and useful feedback.

Effort helps when success is possible and feedback follows. Blind frustration does not.

Impact becomes real when it has a face

Organizational psychologist Adam Grant and his colleagues studied university fundraising callers.

Some callers met a scholarship student whose education had been funded by their work.

The script stayed the same. So did the pay.

But the callers could now picture someone who benefited when they picked up the phone. After meeting the student, they worked longer and raised more money.

Now compare that with the language we often use to introduce workplace training:

• Maintain compliance
• Reduce organizational risk
• Support strategic priorities
• Complete this requirement by Friday

Technically accurate. Emotionally dead.

Grant studied direct contact with a beneficiary, not whether a good story can rescue a dull compliance course. But the design question travels well:

Can employees see the person their actions affect?

Who stays safe? Whose work becomes easier?

Try this: Replace “This training is important because…” with a real example of someone affected by the behavior.

Don’t just explain the requirement. Give the consequence a face.

Information cannot fix a friction problem

Imagine you know exactly what to do.

Then you meet the form.

The instructions are vague. The button you need is buried three menus deep. One approval takes four days, and nobody knows who owns it.

Would another course help?

Eric Bettinger and his colleagues studied families applying for college financial aid. One group received personalized information. Another received the same information, plus hands-on help completing and submitting the application.

The help changed behavior. Information alone did much less.

The workplace parallel is hard to miss. We prescribe training when the real obstacle is:

• A confusing form
• A buried button
• Too many approvals
• An unclear process
• A lack of time
• A system designed like an escape room

If people already know what to do, more content is unlikely to save the day.

Try this: Before building training, watch someone perform the task. Count the clicks, decisions, delays, handoffs, and chances to give up.

You may not have a knowledge problem. You may have a friction problem.

A badly framed norm can make behavior worse

In a well-known field experiment, households learned how their energy use compared with their neighbors’.

The heavy users cut back.

But some households that had used less energy began using more. Once they saw the average, they drifted toward it even though that meant doing worse.

A small sign of approval, a smiley face, stopped that boomerang effect.

Now consider this workplace message:

Thirty percent of employees still click suspicious links.

The intended message is clear:

This behavior needs to change.

But employees may hear something else:

Plenty of people do it. I wouldn’t be unusual.

If your data support it, you might say:

Most employees report suspicious messages when something doesn’t look right. Thank you for helping protect your coworkers.

What if the desired behavior is not common yet?

Don’t invent a statistic. State the standard:

Reporting a suspicious message is exactly the response we want. Every report helps protect the people around you.

Try this: Review one message about poor behavior. Does it make the problem sound normal—or the solution?

​
The Bottom Line

These studies examine different problems, but they point in the same direction:

People must notice what matters. They must recall it when needed, see a reason to act, have a workable path, and believe the behavior belongs here.

Training can help.

But it cannot repair a cluttered design, bring an empty mandate to life, remove a broken process, or overpower a culture that rewards the wrong behavior.

Sometimes the smartest move is to improve the training.

Sometimes it is to fix what stands in the way.

What workplace learning problem should I investigate next?

Hit reply and tell me. Your question may shape a future Newsletter Edition.

See you next Friday!

P.S. Know someone who wants to solve performance problems—not merely assign training? Forward this issue to them. They can subscribe here: miketaylor.kit.com​

📍Where I'll be next

• ​ATD Core4,
  Sept 29-Oct 1Indianapolis,IN
  ​
• ​Training 2027 Conference & Expo,
  February 22-24 Orlando, FL

P.S. Know someone who would find this helpful?

The best way to support Friday Finds is to pass it on. Forward this email to a friend and invite them to join 3,000+ other readers at miketaylor.kit.com​

(Already subscribed? You can grab my book, buy me a coffee, or book me to speak at your company.)