The Role of Training in Change Managements
Training occupies a privileged position in change management. When adoption stalls, training is often the first lever leaders pull—and frequently the last one they question.
This creates a paradox:
Training is essential for change, yet over-relied upon as a substitute for leadership, design, and accountability.
In many organizations, “we need more training” becomes the default diagnosis for problems that are not learning problems at all. Poor system design, unclear decision rights, misaligned incentives, unrealistic workloads, or lack of leadership reinforcement are reframed as capability gaps because training is familiar, fundable, and non-threatening.
This article examines the real role of training in change management, where it adds value, where it does not, and how change professionals should reposition training in an era of digital platforms, AI, and continuous change.
1. What training actually does in change management
Training serves a specific purpose in change: it builds Knowledge and supports Ability. It does not create buy-in, resolve political resistance, or compensate for poorly designed systems.
At its best, training:
- Clarifies new expectations
- Builds procedural and technical competence
- Reduces anxiety through familiarity
- Accelerates time-to-proficiency
At its worst, training:
- Masks structural issues
- Delays hard decisions
- Creates false confidence
- Consumes time without changing behavior
A core principle for change professionals:
Training enables change; it does not drive it.
2. Training in the context of change models
Training and ADKAR
Within ADKAR, training primarily addresses:
- Knowledge (how to change)
- Part of Ability (practicing skills)
Training does not address:
- Awareness (why change is happening)
- Desire (personal motivation)
- Reinforcement (sustaining change)
Yet many organizations deploy training as if it solves all five elements.
Training in Prosci-style change
Prosci positions training as one component of a broader change plan. In practice, however, training often becomes the most visible and resourced activity, while sponsorship and reinforcement receive less sustained attention.
This imbalance leads to a common failure mode:
- High training completion rates
- Low real adoption
- Blame shifting from leadership to employees
Training in Agile and product-led change
Agile and product-led environments de-emphasize formal training in favor of:
- Intuitive design
- Embedded guidance
- Learning through use
This challenges traditional assumptions about training’s centrality—but does not eliminate the need for it, especially where:
- Risk is high
- Judgment is required
- Roles are materially changing
3. The most common training fallacies in change management
Fallacy 1: “If people are trained, they will change”
Training creates potential capability, not actual behavior change. Behavior is shaped by:
- System constraints
- Performance measures
- Manager expectations
- Cultural norms
Without alignment in these areas, training decays rapidly.
Fallacy 2: “Low adoption means insufficient training”
Low adoption more often signals:
- Poorly designed processes
- Conflicting priorities
- Weak reinforcement
- Lack of consequences
Defaulting to retraining avoids confronting these issues.
Fallacy 3: “Training completion equals readiness”
Attendance and completion metrics are activity measures, not outcome measures.
Professionally relevant questions are:
- Can people perform under real conditions?
- Are errors decreasing?
- Is cycle time improving?
- Are workarounds declining?
Fallacy 4: “Training can compensate for bad systems”
No amount of training can make:
- A broken workflow usable
- Conflicting KPIs compatible
- Overloaded roles sustainable
Training cannot override structural dysfunction.
4. When training is absolutely critical
Despite its overuse, training is non-negotiable in certain change scenarios.
1. High-risk environments
Training is essential when:
- Safety is involved
- Compliance is mandatory
- Errors have legal or financial consequences
Examples:
- Healthcare
- Aviation
- Financial controls
- Cybersecurity
2. Role-based skill shifts
When change requires:
- New professional competencies
- Judgment-based decision making
- Mastery beyond simple tool usage
Training must be:
- Role-specific
- Practice-oriented
- Supported by coaching
3. Complex system adoption
When systems are:
- Non-intuitive
- Highly configurable
- Poorly designed (often unavoidable)
Training mitigates cognitive overload and error risk.
4. Ethical and AI-related change
AI-driven change often introduces:
- New decision responsibilities
- Ethical considerations
- Ambiguity and trust concerns
Training here is not about button-clicking but judgment calibration.
5. The difference between training, learning, and enablement
Change professionals must distinguish between:
Training
- Structured
- Time-bound
- Content-driven
- Often centralized
Learning
- Ongoing
- Contextual
- Experience-driven
- Social
Enablement
- System design
- Process clarity
- Tool usability
- Manager reinforcement
Most failed “training problems” are actually enablement failures.
6. The shift from event-based training to performance support
Modern change increasingly favors:
- Just-in-time learning
- Embedded guidance
- Digital adoption platforms
- Peer support networks
This shift reflects a reality:
People learn best while doing real work, not in abstract settings.
Training should therefore:
- Prepare people to start
- Reduce early error rates
- Support faster time-to-value
Not aim to create mastery upfront.
7. The role of managers in training effectiveness
Training without managerial reinforcement decays rapidly.
Managers are critical because they:
- Set priorities
- Allocate time to practice
- Provide feedback
- Signal what “good” looks like
Yet managers are often:
- Untrained themselves
- Overloaded
- Misaligned on expectations
A professional rule:
If managers are not prepared to reinforce training, training investment is largely wasted.
8. Measuring training impact in change management
Change professionals lose credibility when training impact is measured poorly.
Weak measures:
- Attendance
- Completion rates
- Satisfaction scores
Strong measures:
- Error rates
- Productivity changes
- Cycle time
- Quality outcomes
- Adoption depth
Training measurement must connect to business outcomes, not learning activity.
9. Training in AI-driven and digital change
AI reshapes training in three ways:
| 1 | Reduced need for procedural training | Systems increasingly guide users. |
| 2 | Increased need for judgment training | Humans must understand when to trust, override, or escalate AI output. |
| 3 | Continuous reskilling pressure | Static training programs age quickly. |
This shifts training from:
“How to use the tool”
to
“How to think, decide, and act responsibly with the tool.”
10. How change professionals should reposition training
Training should be:
- Targeted
- Role-based
- Time-efficient
- Closely integrated with work
Training should not be:
- A default response
- A compliance exercise
- A substitute for leadership
- A standalone solution
Change professionals must be willing to say:
“This is not a training problem.”
That statement often protects credibility more than another course.
11. The political comfort of training—and why it’s dangerous
Training is attractive because:
- It avoids conflict
- It feels supportive
- It is socially acceptable
But overusing training:
- Shifts accountability downward
- Infantilizes professionals
- Delays systemic fixes
This is why experienced change professionals treat training with discipline, not enthusiasm.
12. The future role of training in change management
Training is not disappearing.
But it is being repositioned.
The future of training in change is:
- Smaller
- Smarter
- Embedded
- Outcome-linked
Change professionals who continue to lead with training will be sidelined.
Those who use training precisely, sparingly, and strategically will remain relevant.
Conclusion: Training as a lever, not a crutch
Training remains a critical component of change management—but only when used for the right reasons.
The uncomfortable truth is this:
Most change failures are not learning failures. They are leadership, design, and reinforcement failures disguised as training gaps.
The role of the change professional is not to deliver more training, but to ensure training is used only where it actually creates value—and nowhere else.
