If you missed our latest live stream, catch up below. But if you’re more of a reader, let’s break down a flawed assumption that keeps L&D stuck in a loop: learning design, no matter how well-intentioned, is still just an internal function. It rarely changes the system employees operate in—it just adds another layer on top.
We love human-centred design—but it’s being used wrong
Let’s be clear: human-centred design is not the problem. It’s one of the best tools we have for fixing broken systems. The double diamond is great—but what’s happened in L&D is that we’ve taken this holistic, powerful approach and shrunk it down to focus purely on learning.
“You can’t apply human-centred design in pockets—it falls flat.”
And that’s exactly what’s happening. Instead of using design thinking to reshape the entire employee experience, we’re using it to perfect the art of building learning products.
We conduct empathy interviews, map learner personas, and test learning prototypes—but at the end of the day, we’re still just designing learning. We’re not:
- Fixing broken workflows.
- Changing outdated leadership models.
- Redesigning performance systems.
- Addressing systemic blockers to success.
And so, learning becomes an afterthought, something that tries to fix issues that should have been solved earlier in the employee experience.
Real stories from the live stream: the search for meaning in work
During our live stream, Emilie and I ended up talking about something that doesn’t get enough attention—why do people even want to be employed in the first place?
That might sound obvious—salary, stability, career progression—but it’s deeper than that. Work is an exchange of value. Yet, most L&D interventions don’t acknowledge that. Instead, they treat employees like passive consumers of learning, as if the very act of consuming content is the goal.
Emilie put it best when she said:
“Employment is a mutually beneficial relationship between employee and employer. But the way that that has just been described seems like it’s an incredibly one-way transactional—no, not even transactional. It is literally a one-way route to building a relationship with another human being.”
And that’s the problem. We create learning pathways, but not career autonomy. We design courses, but not better ways of working. We build immersive learning experiences, but not immersive job experiences.
What if, instead of funneling people through structured learning, we focused on making work itself the best possible learning environment?
The myth of learning innovation
Let’s be real. Most “innovation” in L&D is just a shinier version of the same old thing.
- AI-powered learning? Still just learning.
- VR-based simulations? Still just learning.
- Career development frameworks? Still just learning.
Some frameworks, like the Big Five Personality Traits, have solid academic backing. Others, like Myers-Briggs (MBTI), have been widely debunked as pseudoscience. Yet MBTI remains a corporate favorite.
“If all you have is training, everything is a training need.”
Exactly. We’re not transforming work—we’re just making learning more engaging. That’s why organizations struggle to articulate the true value of what L&D delivers.
“Teams often struggle to articulate the value of non-learning solutions.”
The reason? We’re too busy designing learning instead of solving actual problems.
What we should be doing instead
This is where real human-centred design comes in—not the version that optimises learning, but the version that redesigns work. Instead of building new ways for employees to absorb knowledge, we should be asking:
🔍 Is learning even the right answer?
Most of the time, the real solution isn’t a training intervention—it’s a process fix, better communication, or a shift in culture.
🔍 What’s actually stopping people from performing?
Are they really lacking knowledge, or are they blocked by systems, time constraints, or outdated ways of working?
🔍 How do we remove the need for learning in the first place?
If we designed workplaces where learning was naturally embedded in how work gets done, we wouldn’t need half of what L&D produces.
“Learning should be a two-way process—real involvement embeds knowledge sharing.”
Absolutely. The best learning isn’t a product—it’s the natural result of well-designed work.
Final thought: stop designing learning. Start designing work.
L&D loves to tinker with learning. We keep moving the pieces around the board—from classroom to e-learning, from LMS to LXPs, from content to experiences—without realising the board itself needs flipping.
The real challenge isn’t to create better learning experiences. It’s to create better work environments where learning happens automatically.
The double diamond isn’t just for learning design—it should be shaping every aspect of HR. When we apply human-centred design only to learning, we’re missing the real opportunity: to redesign the entire employee experience, systems, and structures that shape work itself.
What would change if we stopped designing for “learning” and started designing for performance, motivation, and workflow?
Drop your thoughts in the comments—let’s keep the conversation going.