The Psychology Behind Sticking to Learning “Dead Horses”
It’s not that difficult to identify a “dead horse” within an organization, whether it’s an onboarding system that doesn’t set up a new hire for success or a compliance course that hasn’t eliminated workplace mistakes. However, the gap between recognizing a redundant or downright harmful program, system, or initiative and actually taking steps to address it is much larger than we think. What causes this resistance to change? What is pushing businesses to pour resources into businesses that have proven ineffective? In this article, we’ll discuss 5 reasons why businesses continue to invest in failed learning initiatives, as well as the hidden costs of this inaction.
What are the hidden costs of investing in failed learning strategies?
You might think that insisting on riding the L&D “dead horse” will only cost you time. However, there are many other negative consequences that your business will face sooner or later.
- Missing Engagement: Even if they don’t have much experience with training programs, it’s not hard to understand when learning materials are outdated or poorly designed. And once that feeling sinks, learners lose motivation, participation drops, and your organization’s entire L&D strategy loses its credibility.
- Financial impact: You may think that updating or replacing failing learning programs is an expense you can’t afford. However, this does not take into account the loss in profits caused by your company’s lack of innovation. Investments in innovative training methods, such as experiential learning or immersive platforms, pay off quickly in improved learning outcomes and performance.
- Reduction in competitive edge: Retaining outdated training methods and materials prevents your workforce from adapting to technological advancements and industry demands. As a result, competitors who take steps to innovate and streamline their processes gain a distinct advantage over you. In this competitive business landscape, this is an advantage you can’t afford to give up.
- Adverse effects on culture: The way the company operates reflects the behavior of the employees. So, when employees see their leaders consistently avoid difficult decisions and embrace the status quo, sooner or later they will follow suit. They will accept the status quo, refuse to think outside the box, and ultimately become resistant to growth and innovation.
5 Reasons Why Businesses Continue to Invest in Failed Learning
Are businesses reluctant to “get off the dead horse of learning” because they can’t see the negative consequences we’ve described above? The problem is often more complex than that. While such conclusions may be obvious, there are other underlying beliefs that mistakenly reduce the need for a change in the list of priorities. Let’s see what some of them are.
Misconception of sunk costs
“We’ve invested too much to stop now.”
The most common reason businesses use to continue investing in failed learning initiatives is to protect the resources they have already spent. Creating a learning strategy requires significant funds to research and develop content, find the right learning management system (LMS), train employees to use it, etc. Nevertheless, past investments cannot justify stopping a system that is no longer effective. While these have brought desired results in the past, if this is no longer the case, there is no reason to carry on dead weight. Refusal to recognize the evolving needs of your organization will prevent it from being successful and profitable.
The comfort of familiarity
“We’ve used this program for years, and everyone knows it works. Or, at least it used to…”
Familiarity plays an important role in the “dead horse” theory, as it creates a false sense of security. Everyone knows how to operate the system, they’ve encountered every possible bug and thus know how to manage them, the metrics are predictable, and the content is familiar. But familiarity breeds complacency, especially when no one dares to challenge the effectiveness of the “well-established” system or assess whether the content is relevant or not. Moreover, if the system is believed to work well for many years, it is unlikely that any opinions are being collected to support this statement with data. A truly effective training strategy should be regularly reviewed to ensure that it continues to meet its intended purpose.
The fear factor
“If we stop now, what do we do next?”
This is a natural thought for businesses that have been using their familiar, but ineffective, learning programs for a long time. L&D professionals may understandably think that changing their learning platform can cause significant disruption, especially if it supports multiple processes, such as compliance, onboarding, upskilling, etc. At the same time, they may lack the resources necessary to design a new system while maintaining the old one. As a result, instead of making bold changes to the business, businesses remain in “recovery mode,” implementing minor updates or rebuilding isolated modules. Unfortunately, these are only short-term fixes that don’t address the central problem: the entire training strategy no longer serves its purpose.
Emphasizing the wrong metrics
“This training works! Look how many people are completing it!”
Too often, businesses continue to invest in failed learning initiatives because of the wrong metrics to control. In particular, L&D teams can focus entirely on quantitative data, such as attendance logs, completion rates, and baseline satisfaction surveys. These metrics can create a false success image that hides deeper problems behind the high numbers. This often stems from a desire to prove to supervisors and stakeholders that training really engages employees. However, the true indicators of success are found in qualitative data that assess behavioral effects, application of newly acquired skills in the workplace, and tangible effects on organizational success. As long as this information is receiving insufficient attention, you won’t be able to dismiss your organization’s learning as a “dead horse.”
Cultural rigidity
“We work here.”
Ultimately, this is because strategies to fail often go beyond resources, familiarity, or fear of change and failure. For many organizations, the root cause is embedded in their culture. When companies cling to tradition, hierarchy, and rigid processes, making change is a complex endeavor that faces significant resistance. This resistance can manifest in various ways, such as overcoming a long bureaucratic process or convincing multiple stakeholders that it is actually worth changing an established program. The bottom line is that organizations with rigid cultures always tend to follow unfamiliar paths, thereby hindering their ability to reach their full potential.
The result
A successful learning and development strategy is one that continuously evolves following industry demands and learning needs. But what about businesses that, despite knowing they are holding on to learning “dead horses,” don’t take action to spark change and innovation? In this article, we discuss the reasons for this rigidity and how they are likely to manifest in an organization. By understanding the psychology behind the reluctance to abandon ineffective strategies, you can break the cycle and stop investing in ineffective learning strategies.
