Learning Objectives in the Career Process is a Strategy

Why It Should Be Specially Chosen

Learning in the workplace has quickly become one of the most popular concepts in Learning and Development (L&D). And for good reason. It promises speed. Compatibility. A little inconvenience. Support in times of need. In the right circumstances, it delivers all that. But there is a growing problem.

Many organizations do not use learning in the workflow as a targeted solution. They use it as a default response. And in doing so, they make the same mistake they made with the lessons—just in a different way.

A Pattern We’ve Seen Before

For years, the default answer to most performance problems was: “Build a course.” Now, in most organizations, that default is changing to: “Add it to the workflow.” At first glance, this sounds like progress. It feels modern. It works very well. A lot has to do with how people actually work. But the basic decision concept has generally not changed. The method is still preferred. The problem is still being explained for the second time. This is where things start to fall apart.

Modality Is Not Strategy

That something is delivered like this:

1. Lesson
2. Workshop
3. Job assistance
4. Checklist
5. A fast library
6. Or embedded directly into the workflow

…none of these choices is inherently right or wrong. They are a delivery method. They are only meaningful in relation to:

1. Required skill.
2. The conditions under which the operation takes place.
3. Environmental barriers.

When modality becomes the starting point, organizations run the risk of solving the wrong problem in the most effective way.

That Learning in Workflow Actually Works Well

Learning on the job is most effective when the skill already exists. It works best for:

1. Remember at the right time.
2. Strengthening known processes.
3. To reduce conflict in practice.
4. To increase consistency.

In these cases, the problem is not that people don’t know what to do. The problem is:

1. They can’t remember you yet.
2. They don’t have easy access to it.
3. The process is complex enough that it needs support.

Here, embedding support directly into the workflow is not only helpful—it’s often the best option.

Where It Breaks

The issue arises when organizations expect workflow solutions to do more than what they are designed to do. They are often used in situations that require:

1. Judgment.
2. Decision making.
3. Putting it first.
4. Adaptability under pressure.

In these cases, performance depends on the strength that must be present before the moment of execution. No checklist, prompt, or embedded guide can fully compensate for a lack of basic skill. At best, it creates dependency. At worst, it creates the illusion of competence. This becomes especially dangerous in AI-enabled environments, where tools can accelerate output but cannot ensure quality or relevance without human judgment.

Real Questions Organization Should Ask

Instead of asking: “Can we put this in the workflow?” A better question is: “What level of skill is required for this job, and when does that skill need to be available?” From there, the decision becomes increasingly clear:

1. If a skill must exist before it works → it needs to be developed.
2. If the strength is there but needs strengthening → it can be supported.
3. If the problem is not a skill → it must be solved elsewhere.

This shifts the conversation from status to performance.

The Risk of One-to-One Automatic Switching

There are subtle but significant risks to the current trend. Organizations may believe that they are improving from academics. But if they just change the default to something else, nothing important has changed. Still:

1. Choosing solutions is too early.
2. Skipping the definition of the problem.
3. Improving delivery rather than performance.

The tools look different. The results usually don’t.

A More Helpful Way to Think About It

Learning from workflow is not a strategy. It is one of the options among a wide set of interventions. A more effective way is to separate the three decisions:

1. What performance needs to be improved?
2. What capability should exist to support that performance?
3. What is a minimally invasive way to achieve or maintain that ability?

Only then does the mode become appropriate. And in most cases, the answer will include a combination of:

1. The skill is built ahead of time.
2. Support is embedded in the workflow.
3. Clarity of expectations and procedures.

A Final Thought

Learning in the workflow is important. But it’s not universal, and it’s not a building block. When used intentionally, learning targets in workflows reduce friction and improve performance. If used indiscriminately, it risks closing deep gaps and creating false confidence.

The goal is not to choose the most modern method. It is choosing the right intervention for the level of performance that the job really requires. That requires a different kind of discipline. The first is the problem—not the method of delivery.