Most learning and development (L&D) organizations are structured in one of three ways: a centralized model, where one team serves the entire organization; a decentralized model, where individual business units or regions manage their own learning functions; or a federated model, which blends centralized governance with decentralized content development and delivery. Each approach has advantages depending on an organization’s size, complexity and business needs.

There is no universally “right” training organization model. L&D can operate strategically within any of these structures when the model aligns with how the business works. The challenge comes when that alignment begins to break down.

If your days are consistently spent responding to a steady stream of training requests, reprioritizing projects, juggling backlogs and rushing to develop learning for initiatives that were decided weeks or months before L&D was brought into the conversation, it may be more than a workload problem. When those patterns persist despite improvements to processes and prioritization, they may signal that your current organization model is no longer serving your team — or the business.

The leaders interviewed for this article all restructured their learning organizations for different reasons and in different ways. However, they all described similar signs that it was time for a change and shared practical lessons for leaders considering a restructuring initiative.

1. L&D Is Stuck in Reactive Mode

The decision to restructure often starts when L&D is spending more time on support issues than creating solutions that impact the organization, said Diane Gaa, CPTM, vice president of technology and program management at WeLearn Learning Services.

“The result of reactivity is that you are stuck in low capacity, you can’t get anything done and you end up with a backlog 100 projects deep,” Gaa said.

One clear sign that you are in reactive mode is when L&D leaders hear about decisions after they’ve been made instead of being invited into the conversations that shape them.

Christian Bentley, CPTM, senior director of technology at Sequoia Financial Group, recalled being a part of training teams early in his career that were consistently brought in at the eleventh hour.

“Why are you bringing us into this now?” he remembers thinking. “Now we’ve got to rush to retrofit a training program to the dates you’ve had from day one.”

At Sequoia, Bentley worked with the organization’s project management office to ensure L&D was represented much earlier in project planning. “Be the fly on the wall during planning sessions throughout the business,” said Bentley. “L&D may not always be able to influence the what or when of the plan, but we will certainly be part of the solution in the end. So, it’s in the firm’s best interest that we are thinking early about how training will impact the long-term outcomes and goals.”

Similarly, Drew Krajewski, CPTM, director of learning solutions at Highmark Health, recently helped move his team away from what he describes as an “order-taker mentality.” Under his organization’s previous structure, requests flowed in and work was assigned based largely on who happened to have capacity. Today, his team operates in pods aligned to specific business units, acting more like partners and less like ticket processors.

“We still have those service requests that come in for training to be developed, but now we know exactly where the work is going,” said Krajewski. “We can proactively shuffle our chess pieces around in order to make sure that we have appropriate resources in place.”

2. The Business Has Changed More Than the Training Function

If L&D is operating under a status quo that no longer exists, it’s time for a restructure. As the Central Bank of Utah grew, hiring volumes more than doubled over a five-year period. Yet the organization’s largely decentralized approach to onboarding — where job training was spread across operational support teams — remained largely unchanged, said Andrew Darowski, CPTM, the company’s training director.

“What worked when we were hiring 30 people a year didn’t work when we were hiring 70 or 100,” said Darowski.

Training that had once been delivered to one person at a time suddenly became unsustainable. “The same trainers were seeing a lot more demand; when the pace and repetition increased, the quality decreased. They were rushing through the content and in some cases burning out,” said Darowski.

Looking back, Darowski believes the team’s lack of agility to evolve alongside the business was a symptom that something needed to change.

“We should have been planning before the company grew by 50%, not after, by proactively stress testing our systems, being a part of strategic discussions and being willing to change our processes and adjust our resource allocation in support of the business,” he said.

3. You’re Solving Symptoms Instead of Root Causes

Before launching a full restructuring effort, many organizations attempt smaller fixes. They move people around and redistribute the work, but those moves rarely solve the underlying problem.

Before his team at Highmark Health could launch into a restructure initiative, Krajewski first examined whether his team had the skills necessary to support it. That process revealed gaps in areas like quality assurance, learning experience design and multimedia development. Rather than assuming existing roles could absorb those responsibilities, the team intentionally added capabilities needed to support the new structure.

“Our restructure happened in a few separate stages, and the first was laying out the specific skill sets we needed and making a plan to start working toward that before we could even begin,” said Krajewski.

Whether the issue is structure, scale or capability, L&D leaders must take the time to really understand what’s preventing them from achieving business impact before they launch into a major change initiative.

Lessons From L&D Leaders Who’ve Been Through It

No two restructures will look exactly the same, but the leaders interviewed for this article shared four lessons that should help no matter your starting point.

1. Build Your Case Around Business Problems

Executives aren’t likely to approve a restructuring because L&D is overwhelmed. They need to understand how a different operating model will help the business perform better.

“’My people are tired’ isn’t typically a message that moves a room full of executives,” said Darowski. “You have to go into those conversations knowing what your company values, using the terminology the executives use, to persuade them that a restructure will be better for the business.”

Start by identifying the business pain points. Bentley found success by asking teams throughout the company where they struggled in their day-to-day jobs. He intentionally centralized enterprise-wide learning around culture and values while designing role-specific development around the needs of individual business functions.

“That helped me to uncover the ‘why’ that I could take back to their leaders,” said Bentley. “I could then show how better training processes would improve their outputs. It was less about being able to use Salesforce, for example. It was about their success in their role and their contribution to the overall success of the company.”

2. Experiment Before Restructuring

Before asking for a restructure, experiment with the future structure with a series of pilot projects, suggested Gaa.

“Think about what you can do without launching a formal structure redesign,” Gaa said. “Try executing one pilot project using a different structure where your team can play in the types of roles and tasks you want to evolve into. This will generate some good data and help you map out how changes on your team can impact the business.”

3. Resist Changing Everything at Once

Darowski’s team restructured the organization while simultaneously redesigning onboarding and other learning processes. Looking back, he says trying to tackle both initiatives simultaneously slowed progress on each.

If he could do it again, he would have looked farther ahead and mapped out a 1-2 year strategic roadmap, he said. “Decide what you are going to work on and when and try not to get out of order. It’ll help you stay proactive rather than reactive along the way,” Darowski said.

4. Don’t Expect Quick Results

One message was clear across my interviews on this topic: resist the urge to judge the new structure too quickly.

“I wouldn’t look at 30 days and give up. Ninety days, I wouldn’t give up either,” said Gaa. Instead, she recommends documenting early signals, giving the team about six months to establish new ways of working and then making incremental adjustments based on what you’ve learned.

Krajewski is early into his team’s new structure, so he isn’t measuring success by completed change. Instead, he’s looking for early wins and evidence that the organization is moving in the right direction. Positive stakeholder feedback and growing recognition of L&D’s business impact have been encouraging early indicators.

Stay Adaptable for Future Changes

All four leaders emphasized the same point: Restructuring isn’t complete when the org chart changes. Give people time to adapt, watch for meaningful signals and continue refining the model as the business evolves.

Use it as an opportunity to align L&D more closely with business needs, build the right capabilities and create a function that can adapt as the organization continues to evolve. No matter how much your organization model changes, try not to get too attached to a “destination” — the work of refining how L&D supports the business never really ends.