Identifying the Real Problem: Beyond “Just Tell Them”
Have you ever noticed how easy it is for people to assume that workplace learning is simply a knowledge problem?
That if we explain what to do clearly enough, people will naturally start doing it?
Sometimes that’s true. But in learning design, sometimes isn’t a strategy.
One of the questions we ask at the start of every project is deceptively simple:
Is this really a knowledge gap?
Because knowledge is only part of the learning game. In performance-driven contexts, it’s not what learners understand that matters most—it’s what they do.
As many learning professionals have observed, you don’t want a firefighter who can explain how to put out a fire. You want one who actually puts it out.
So, if performance isn’t improving, and simply telling people what to do isn’t working, what else should we be looking for?
1. Skills: When “Knowing” Isn’t “Doing”
Even when learners know what they should do, they may not know how to apply that knowledge in the messy, complex reality of work.
We’ve worked with clients who initially framed their challenge as a knowledge gap—only to discover, after speaking with learners, that the real issue was skill.
In one case, an organisation was investing in a significant uplift in risk capability and culture. Months into the initiative, the evidence suggested strong knowledge:
- Learners could define key risk concepts and terminology.
- They understood their responsibilities and accountabilities.
- They could describe major risk categories across the organisation.
And yet, risk management remained reactive. In some cases, risks were overlooked altogether.
When we dug deeper, the insight was revealing.
Learners understood risk management principles. But they struggled to raise issues—especially when doing so required challenging peers or escalating concerns to managers.
The gap wasn’t conceptual. It was interpersonal.
They needed practice in navigating difficult conversations. They needed behavioural fluency, not more definitions.
That realisation reframed the solution. Instead of reinforcing concepts, the next wave of learning focused on applying risk management skills in high-stakes, emotionally charged contexts.
The shift moved the organisation closer to genuine performance change.
2. Motivation: When Learners Don’t See the “Why”
Sometimes learners know exactly what to do and how to do it.
They just don’t see why it matters.
Motivation gaps can be subtle, and they’re often misdiagnosed as apathy or resistance. But in many cases, they stem from structural or psychological disconnects.
Two common drivers we look for:
Misalignment with Personal Values
If a task feels trivial, bureaucratic, or disconnected from what a learner cares about, effort drops.
When learners don’t see how a behaviour aligns with their professional identity or personal values, compliance becomes mechanical—and fragile.
Designers can address this by making purpose visible. What does this behaviour protect? Who does it serve? What kind of professional does it reflect?
Invisible or Distant Consequences
Human beings discount delayed outcomes. If the consequences of poor performance are:
Invisible,
Far in the future,
Or experienced by someone else downstream,
then urgency evaporates.
Making consequences concrete—through stories, simulations, or data—can restore salience. Motivation often increases not because learners were told more, but because they were helped to see more clearly.
3. Environment: When the System Undermines the Behaviour
Finally, we examine the environment.
Even knowledgeable, skilled, and motivated learners struggle when the system works against them.
We ask questions like:
- Do the systems make the right behaviours easy—or cumbersome?
- Are reward structures aligned with desired outcomes?
- Are guidelines clear and usable in the flow of work?
Sometimes environmental constraints sit outside the learning team’s remit. But they should never sit outside our analysis.
Design decisions change when we understand environmental friction. We might:
- Integrate job aids directly into workflows.
- Simplify guidance.
- Provide practice that mirrors real system constraints.
- Flag structural issues to stakeholders early.
Learning cannot compensate indefinitely for broken systems.
From Solution Mode to Problem Framing
One of the most common risks in learning projects is moving too quickly into solution mode:
“We need a course.”
“Let’s build a module.”
“We should run a workshop.”
But effective design begins with disciplined diagnosis.
When performance falls short, we should consider all four categories of gaps:
Knowledge gaps – Do learners understand what to do?
Skill gaps – Can they apply it in context?
Motivation gaps – Do they care enough to act?
Environment gaps – Does the system enable or obstruct the behaviour?
This framework doesn’t just improve learning design. It improves conversations with stakeholders. It reframes the problem from “people don’t know” to “what’s really driving behaviour?
A Question for Your Next Project
Before you draft learning objectives.
Before you select modalities.
Before you open your authoring tool.
Pause and ask:
- What behaviour are we trying to change?
- What is currently preventing it?
- Which of these gaps—knowledge, skill, motivation, environment—are actually at play?
When we identify the real problem, our solutions become sharper, more targeted, and far more likely to result in meaningful change.
What do you consider when diagnosing the problem you’re trying to solve?