Recently, I posed a question on LinkedIn to the learning and development (L&D) community that turned out to be quite the hot topic: What’s the difference between training and development?
My question came from an experience where an organizational leader asked me for a “training plan” to help entry-level project managers become better organizational partners. His expectation was that we could send these newly minted professionals into a classroom and they would come out with all the new skills needed.
Although I was honored that this leader trusted my expertise, I knew that his ask was next to impossible. He didn’t need a training plan; he needed a development plan. Or did he?
What is the difference between training and development, anyway? Does the difference really matter?
The multitude of comments from the L&D community surfaced quite a few themes when it comes to the definition of these two concepts, as well as one key consideration. Let’s start with the definitions.
Training is short term and specific, while development is long term and broad
Among the most prominent and consistent comments defining both training and development were those related to timing and focus.
Erica Mahler, a learning experience designer in New York City explains: “[T]raining feels short-term and narrowly focused on specific skills or technical tools. . . . Development implies a longer journey, made up of several experiences across different modalities.” This was much like the description from Graham Herrick, a learning experience designer in London, Ontario. “I see training,” Graham writes, “as a focused, short-term effort to equip people with specific skills they can apply right away. . . . Development, on the other hand, is a long-term investment in someone’s growth.”
Training, it seems, is specific and narrowly focused on a particular task or skill, whereas development is broader and occurs over time. I particularly enjoyed the comment from Michele Oswald, a senior consultant at Deloitte in Philadelphia, who provides a practical visual metaphor. “I look at it holistically,” Michele writes, “and explain it this way: development is like learning how to ride a bike (many skills needed, you need to practice, until automaticity is achieved); training is how to use the brake to stop.”
Jancis Dunn, a leadership trainer and coach from York, England, also comments on the timeline and progression of both concepts. She says she sees “training as a linear path, which is set out and has a specific end goal and date. Development was a more fluid concept, learning over a period of time but that doesn’t have a specific tangible goal or end.”
Development is more focused on the future and training is targeted to immediate needs
If we consider both specificity and length, then it stands to reason that one of these concepts, development, is more focused on preparation for the future whereas the other, training, is focused on immediate needs. This was another theme that echoed repeatedly in the learning and development community’s response.
Alisha Allen (Bradley), an instructional design consultant in Indianapolis, provides a particularly clear and succinct definition: “Training equips employees with the specific skills they need now, [while] development prepares them for future opportunities and career growth.” Brittani Horner, an LMS/training administrator in Moscow Mills, Missouri, agrees: “Training teaches you how to be successful in your current role, [and] development is a plan to help you acquire the skills to be successful in your next role.”
Beyond career preparation, Rick Fearnbaugh, a director of organizational development from Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, expands the definition with a nod to current and future expectations. “Training is providing directly applicable exercises to reinforce processes for completing the tasks expected of an employee,” Rick writes. “Development is providing stretch exercises that work to foster new skills for completing tasks not yet expected of an employee.”
The two concepts of training and development shouldn’t be mutually exclusive. We don’t need to separate them entirely. Candice Mitchell, chief talent development nerd out of Denver, Colorado explains: “Training is for your current role; development is for your future role. There’s no black and white. It interweaves as you should always be doing both. The ratio ebbs and flows.”
Training is a tactic to support development
If training is much smaller, specific, and focused it is only logical that this could be one part of a larger development toolbox.
Amy Serrano, a training manager in Orlando, explains: “[D]evelopment is the overarching theme, and training may be a component of that development toward a longer-term goal.” While Ryan McCrea, a head of learning and leadership development out of St. Louis, gives us a more visual metaphor: “I think of development as the big, broad bucket around growing people. Training is a tactic to support development.”
I agree with the overarching definitions from the community. Training is specific, short term, and focused on the current role, and development is broader, longer term, and focused on what will be needed next, whether that’s developing a skill set or preparing for an entirely new role. I also agree that training is one tool that’s part of a larger developmental bucket.
All these thoughts caused me to pause when my stakeholder asked for a training plan. What he wanted was too big to fit in a training alone.
But does it really matter?
Focus on understanding the need and getting it right and don’t sweat the word choices
When we step back to consider the bigger picture, the term my stakeholder used (training) vs. the term I was thinking would meet his need (development) were different, but only for me. He didn’t care and it wouldn’t have made any difference if I educated him. For him, it was semantics. The words were not the need, they were just what he chose to use as a description of that need.
Colin Hahn, a learning and organizational development manager in Milwaukee, shares these wise thoughts about word selection: “Expecting them to get the vocabulary right doesn’t help me, and it makes it more imposing on them to make the ask. . . . If they say, ‘. . . I need you to design some training,’ I have better context to explore the need. I will definitely educate the customer about what solution I recommend and why, but I want that to be a way to build our partnership rather than a barrier to our collaboration.”
In other words, we shouldn’t let a word get in the way.
Training is just the word that opens the door. It isn’t the final answer and may not even meet the need. Jonathan Brown, a learning and development director in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, stresses the need for further exploration. “I have found over the years,” Jonathan writes, “that the word training is used broadly by most. Consequently, I always go into a consultative mode when discussing issues with a colleague, organizational leader, or client. Following up their training statement with a series of curious questions meant to find out what they really need.”
We don’t need to confuse people with our own terminology. When we focus on the words we may miss the point. Our roles exist to partner in solving talent challenges. Yes, we have our own words to describe what that looks like, but so do others. When we zoom out to see the bigger picture of a stakeholder with a need and then zoom in to ask questions that uncover the actual problem, we provide real value. We solve problems and help move organizations and teams forward.
Final thoughts: We can multiply our impact by understanding the need and solving the problem, regardless of what we call our tools
The outcome of my stakeholder situation? I let him lead the way with his language and followed suit. After many questions to learn more about his need, I provided a solution based on his language and understanding but with a little of my expertise thrown in. It sounded something like this: “I think we need to design a long-term training plan. The skills you are hoping your team members will develop will take time and practice, which means a one-time class won’t do the trick. But we can build this long-term training plan and measure progress over time.”
I didn’t care if we called it a long-term training plan or a development plan. It really didn’t matter. It was just important that the team members grew and changed in a way that would benefit the company
Al Dea, founder of The Edge of Work, phrases it perfectly: “What I find most interesting is whatever is on the other side of whatever terminology you decide. The deeper insights you can get into what specifically they are looking for whatever language word is used, the more creative, expansive, and precise you can get in designing and delivering on that request. It might be the things you defined originally (training, development) but it could be something else too!”
Let’s get consultative, asking great questions and listening well to uncover the need behind the terminology — whether that is training, development, or something else entirely.
Let’s focus on addressing the need and solving the problems without getting hung up on semantics and then watch our impact multiply.
Jess Almlie is a learning and performance strategist with over 25 years of experience across multiple industries. In that time, she has worked in all the people development roles, from her very first job as a trainer at McDonald’s to vice president of learning experience at WEX Benefits. Now, as an independent consultant, she helps L&D leaders and teams shift their approach to work more strategically, intentionally, and impactfully.
