“Dear L&D” is a reflective letter-style series where learning leaders address the profession directly, giving voice to the lessons, challenges and opportunities shaping the future of learning and development (L&D).

Dear L&D

For years, learning and development (L&D) professionals have been told not to be order-takers. That was useful advice. After all, when a manager asks for refresher training, a new course or a workshop, L&D should not automatically assume that training is the answer.

But avoiding one problem can create another. Instead of accepting the request, L&D can start making the requester prove that training is a necessary solution.

Why training? What evidence do you have? Have you confirmed a skills gap? What analysis has already been done?

These are reasonable questions, but asked too early or too bluntly, they can make a leader who came to L&D for help feel as though they must defend the request. In that dynamic, L&D may stop being an order-taker only to become a gatekeeper.

There is a better option. Don’t automatically accept the requested solution, and don’t make the requester fight for it, either. Clarify what is happening and help determine what response makes sense.

A training request may point to a legitimate business or performance concern, even when training itself isn’t the right answer. Taking the time to understand that concern allows L&D to give it the attention it deserves while evaluating whether the proposed solution makes sense.

Keep the Diagnosis Inside the Conversation

Diagnosis does not need to feel like a formal process. For many everyday requests, five questions can move the conversation from “We need training” to a much clearer view of what the business really needs.

Start with, “What are you seeing that makes training feel necessary?”

This moves the conversation toward the root cause of the issue. For instance, complaints may be increasing; employees may be escalating decisions they should handle themselves; supervisors may be avoiding difficult conversations; or a process that used to work may no longer be producing consistent results.

Those observations are more useful than debating the merits of a course before the problem is clear.

Then ask, “What do people need to do differently?”

“Better customer service” is difficult to design against. Does “better” mean resolving routine problems without escalation, explaining policies more clearly, handling exceptions consistently and/or making faster decisions?

Before deciding what people need to learn, get clear about what they need to do. Problem-solving begins with a defined challenge and looks for a solution. Solving the right problem means checking whether the problem has been defined correctly in the first place.

That does not require rejecting the training request. It requires separating the performance problem from the proposed intervention. The next question often changes the conversation: “What is getting in the way right now?”

Sometimes, people genuinely do not know how to perform a task. They may understand it conceptually but lack the practice needed to perform it reliably. In other cases, the challenge lies in the work environment rather than the individual’s knowledge or skills.

For example, workplace procedures may make the correct action difficult to execute, instructions may be unclear or managers may give conflicting direction. Heavy workloads can also make expected behaviors unrealistic, while incentives may reward actions that conflict with the organization’s stated goals.

None of this requires a lecture on root-cause analysis. Asking about the work usually reveals more than explaining methodology.

Find the Minimum Viable Intervention

Once the barrier is clearer, ask: “What is the smallest thing we could do that would help?” This is the minimum viable intervention.

“Minimum” does not mean the cheapest or quickest response. A job aid is not automatically better because it takes less time to build, and a course is not automatically more valuable because it is comprehensive.

The goal is to identify the smallest intervention that establishes the conditions needed for successful performance.

If people lack knowledge, give them the knowledge they need. If they understand the task but can’t perform it consistently, give them realistic practice. If the problem is a broken workflow, unclear decision rights, system access or conflicting management direction, fix that condition instead of asking training to compensate for it.

Learner time has a cost, and development time has a cost. Both should be spent where they have a credible chance of changing performance.

Then, ask one final question: “How will the business know this helped?”

The answer should connect to whatever triggered the request. If errors are increasing, look at errors. If escalations are the problem, track escalations. If supervisors are avoiding difficult conversations, look for evidence that those conversations are happening and being handled properly.

Completion data can confirm participation. It can’t establish that the original performance problem improved.

Consider a Refund Problem

Consider the following scenario:

A leader asks for refresher training because customer refund escalations are increasing. At first, forgotten policy seems like a reasonable explanation. However, a brief conversation reveals two distinct issues. Some employees can’t consistently distinguish a standard refund from an exception. They hesitate and escalate cases they are authorized to resolve. Those employees need targeted practice working through realistic decisions.

Other employees understand the policy and make the right judgment, but their system permissions prevent them from completing certain refunds. They escalate because the workflow gives them no alternative.

A closer look at the underlying causes points to a more effective response — provide targeted practice for employees who need to strengthen their decision-making skills and address the permissions or workflow barriers preventing others from completing refunds.

The requester correctly identified a performance problem, and the conversation helped clarify what was causing it and where intervention was needed.

Know When to Stop Diagnosing

Not every training request deserves the same level of analysis.

A safety failure, regulatory issue, enterprise transformation or expensive performance problem may justify interviews, observation, data review and deeper validation.

Many everyday requests, however, do not. A useful rule is to continue investigating only as long as the findings could reasonably change the recommended response.

If another survey, workshop or round of interviews is unlikely to affect the decision, additional diagnosis may add time and complexity without improving the outcome. And sometimes, the requester is right from the start. Employees may lack a necessary skill or need more practice, making training an appropriate response.

The goal is to gather enough information to make an informed decision without turning every request into an exhaustive analysis. That conclusion should not require a lengthy process simply to demonstrate that L&D is being strategic. The test is simpler: Did the conversation make the problem clearer and improve the response?

When someone asks L&D for training, there shouldn’t be only two choices: accept the solution or challenge the requester.

There is a third path. Help them clarify what is happening, identify what needs to change and choose the response with a credible chance of improving performance. Sometimes, that response will be training. Sometimes it won’t. Either way, the business should leave the conversation feeling helped, not interrogated.