How Important is L&D's "Language"?

Does it really matter what we call our work?

Does it really matter what we call something? For example, should we call what we do “training” or “development?” Should we talk about learning outcomes or objectives? Are we designing curriculum, courses, or learning experiences?

I’m guessing you have preferences and likely some strong opinions when it comes to these and other L&D terms. I’ve found most L&D pros do.

The truth is that if we truly want to work as partners in our business, and not order takers, then what we call elements of our work is less important than what our stakeholders call it. The point of our work isn’t to make everyone else an expert in learning terminology, it’s to partner with the business to improve performance and develop people in a way that moves everyone (people and business) forward.

Using language that makes sense to our stakeholders and aligns with the culture of the company will get us further faster. It may also help you to get resisters on board with learning initiatives.

On-the-job training or structured shadowing?

Several years ago, my team was working on an initiative to overhaul the onboarding process at our quickly growing organization. Our new strategy included learning one critical task at a time in a three-part approach. We started with an asynchronous online course, video, or content review followed by a lab-style class for hands-on practice. The third component was applying what was practiced on the job with oversight and guidance from a veteran team member. This is commonly called on-the-job training (OJT) in L&D circles.

The entire approach required partnership with the stakeholder team, but the third part required the most time commitment due to the need for veteran employees to provide consistent guidance and sign off for completion.

In a touch-base meeting, with Sunilee, the head of the customer service teams, I brought up the need for this additional level of partnership. I explained that it was time to add in the last component of our onboarding overhaul, organizing and simplifying on-the-job training. Sunilee immediately shut me down. “On-the-job training?” she asked. “We don’t have time to do on-the-job training! Our plates are already full.”

I left discouraged and confused. I knew the customer service teams were already doing on-the-job training; they just called it “shadowing.”

Then my aha happened. We weren’t speaking the same language! Sunilee thought on-the-job training meant creating a brand-new training program run entirely by her team. But all we really wanted to do was better organize and structure the shadowing they were already doing to align it with the tasks learned in the labs, increasing consistency and improving learning effectiveness.

In my next meeting with Sunilee, I brought up the same next step in our strategy but swapped the language from mine to hers: “It’s time to add in the last component of our onboarding overhaul. Last time we met I mentioned on-the-job training. But, upon further reflection, that isn’t really what we need. We don’t need to create an on-the-job training program that is more work for your team. What we need to do is help you structure the shadowing you are already doing so it’s more organized and creates more consistent learning as a result. It’s all about structured shadowing.”

Sunilee was delighted. She loved the idea of structured shadowing as much as she’d balked at the idea of on-the-job training. She didn't even realize they were exactly the same thing. Structured shadowing isn’t learning industry language, but who cares? I learned my lesson about the power of stakeholder language to create buy-in.

Organizational culture and context

In other instances, certain words can mean different things in different companies usually based on organizational culture and context. Take the word partner for example. In my brain, partner means we are all entering the project as equals, combining our individual expertise to create the most effective outcome. But, in a recent conversation with a professional colleague, he shared that he can’t use the word partner in that way with his stakeholders. In his organization, someone who offers to partner with another area is offering to take on the entirety of a project. For my colleague, if he wanted to work collaboratively with stakeholders, he needed to use a different word than partner.

If we are truly working in alignment with our company goals and culture, our own learning industry language won’t be as important as the outcomes we produce. Use stakeholders and company accepted language as a driver, not a blocker. Let’s get hung up on outcomes before we get hung up on semantics.