Are you picking the wrong format for training?
- Joanna Smith
- 8 hours ago
- 4 min read
One of the biggest mistakes teams make in workplace learning is choosing the format too early.
Someone says, “Let’s make this an eLearning.” Or, “This should be a workshop.” Or you get the classic: “We need a 30-minute module on topic X.” Before anyone’s even defined the real problem, the solution is already on the table.
But if you choose the format before you diagnose the problem, you’re already making the wrong decision. In this video, I want to show you a better way to choose the right format for your training.
Let’s start with a few training myths.
Myth one: digital is always cheaper. Digital learning, like elearning modules, can be great for scale. And yes, sometimes it is cheaper to deliver than running multiple live workshops. But it’s not cheaper if it doesn’t improve performance. Cheap delivery with poor outcomes is still expensive.
Myth two: face-to-face is always better. It’s not. A weak workshop is still weak learning. We’ve all been in meetings that could have been an email.
The same thing can happen with training. Not everything needs live delivery.
Myth three: engagement comes from the medium. It doesn’t. Putting people in a room doesn’t automatically make learning engaging. And putting it online doesn’t magically fix it either. Engagement comes from relevance, design, urgency and what people are actually being asked to do.
Myth four: attendance means success. It doesn’t. Completion rates are not the same as impact. Bums on seats are not the same as changed behaviour.
What matters is what people do differently afterwards.
And that’s why choosing the right format matters. It matters because choosing the wrong training mode is not a small design mistake. It affects the entire learner experience. It affects how easy the learning is to apply. It affects confidence. And ultimately, it affects business results.
So, here’s a better way to think about it:
Don’t start with the medium. Start with the problem.
Ask: is this a knowledge, skill or behaviour problem? And what exactly is the performance shift you want to see? Because that diagnosis should shape the outcomes.
Those outcomes should shape the activities. And the activities should shape the medium.
So, what kind of problem are you actually trying to solve? Usually, it falls into one of three categories.
A knowledge problem is when people need to know something, remember something, or access information in order to perform.
The key question is: Do they need to memorise it? Or just know where to find it when they need it?
A skill problem is when people know what to do but can’t yet do it competently, confidently, or consistently.
Then the question becomes: How hard is this to do well? And how much practice and feedback will they need?
A behaviour problem is when people know what to do, and may even be capable of doing it, but they’re not doing it consistently in the real world.
Then you need to ask: What’s getting in the way? Is it motivation? Accountability? Manager reinforcement? Something in the environment?
And of course, real workplace problems are often a mix of these. But if you can identify the dominant issue first, you’ll make much better design decisions.
Once you know the kind of problem you’re solving, you can make much better choices about format.
Live learning adds the most value when interaction is essential. When people need discussion, Feedback, Coaching and Practice in real time.
I say “live” because this could be face-to-face, or virtual instructor led as long as it’s genuinely interactive.
On the other hand, self-paced digital works well when flexibility, consistency, scale, and repeatable access matter. It’s strong for foundational knowledge, processes, systems, or content people need to revisit.
Especially when it includes interactive, challenging design - like scenarios or spaced retrieval - not just click-next, click-next, click-next. You know what I’m talking about.
And in many cases, blended learning is the strongest option. Because most workplace learning needs more than one thing. Usually, people need some core knowledge. Some application. And some reinforcement over time.
Blended lets you use each mode for what it does best.
Digital can prepare people with the core concepts.
Live sessions can focus on discussion, practice, and application.
Then follow-up support - prompts, job aids, manager check-ins - helps the learning stick.
That’s what good blended learning really is. Not just more stuff- The right mode, for the right purpose, at the right time.
A few quick examples.
If you’re doing policy or process training, don’t assume it’s just about knowledge. Ask what people actually need to do with the information afterwards. Do they need to recall it? Access it? Apply it? Use judgement with it? If it’s mainly recall or access, digital support may be enough. If it’s application or judgement, you’ll probably need scenarios, discussion, or practice as well.
If you’re doing leadership training, memorising principles isn't likely to be enough. Leaders usually need to reflect, practise, get feedback on, and reinforce those behaviours over time.
If you’re doing systems training, simple step-based tasks may suit digital learning well. But if troubleshooting or real-world judgement is involved, guided practice becomes much more important.
And with onboarding, one mode alone is often not enough. New starters usually need a mix of knowledge, skill-building and behaviour support. That’s why blended often makes the most sense.
So, the main takeaway is this. Stop starting with the request for a format. Stop accepting, “we need a 30-minute eLearning,” as the brief.
Instead, start with the performance problem.
Diagnose whether it is mainly a knowledge, skill, or behaviour issue. Then choose the activities and support that fit. And then choose the medium.
Because the best learning format is not always the easiest one to deliver. It’s the one most likely to change what people do.
