{"id":25489,"date":"2026-02-24T13:44:49","date_gmt":"2026-02-24T11:44:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.talentlms.com\/blog\/?p=25489"},"modified":"2026-02-25T11:53:09","modified_gmt":"2026-02-25T09:53:09","slug":"make-time-for-training","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.talentlms.com\/blog\/make-time-for-training\/","title":{"rendered":"Why \u201cMake Time for Training\u201d is Bad Advice"},"content":{"rendered":"

Strategies for employees. Frameworks for managers. Templates for HR. There\u2019s no shortage of productivity hacks<\/strong> designed to help employees make time for training.<\/p>\n

Block your calendar.
\nSchedule learning for Fridays.
\nProtect development hours.
\nSet personal goals.
\nReduce meeting time.
\nUse microlearning.<\/p>\n

These tactics aren\u2019t without merit. They create short-term breathing room. They satisfy the immediate pressure to \u201cdo something.\u201d And tick a few L&D boxes when the pressure for accountability is real.<\/p>\n

But long-term? They don\u2019t solve the problem. They just manage the optics<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The problem isn\u2019t effort. Employees aren\u2019t resisting learning. They\u2019re overloaded.<\/p>\n

When learning depends on spare time, it\u2019s already designed to fail. And in today\u2019s workplace, that failure isn\u2019t neutral. It affects real performance, business outcomes, and employee training ROI.<\/p>\n

The advice sounds logical. The data says otherwise<\/h2>\n

TalentLMS\u2019s 2026 L&D Benchmark Report<\/a><\/strong> revealed a hard truth: lack of time is the biggest threat to learning.<\/p>\n

\"Graph<\/p>\n

The numbers are clear. Half of HR managers and 54% of employees say workloads leave little room for training. While 46% of employees and 49% of HR managers say training is seen as \u201ctime away from real work.\u201d<\/p>\n

Against this backdrop, there are other contributing factors at play. Performance expectations increased for 65% of employees in 2025, while multitasking during training hit 70%.<\/p>\n

This isn\u2019t a motivation problem. It\u2019s a capacity problem. Learning is competing with the calendar. And losing.<\/strong> Here\u2019s the reality: if employees don\u2019t have time, telling them to \u201cmake time\u201d won\u2019t solve it. It shifts responsibility onto the individual while ignoring the real issue.<\/p>\n

Time isn\u2019t the problem. Training design is.<\/p>\n

\u201cMake time\u201d assumes training is separate from work<\/h2>\n

Whether it\u2019s deadlines, customer demands, onboarding<\/a><\/strong> pressure, compliance requirements<\/a><\/strong>, or performance targets, the message is the same: work comes first. Training comes after.<\/p>\n

And when training is positioned as \u201cafter,\u201d it will always feel optional.<\/p>\n

This isn\u2019t just a scheduling issue. It\u2019s a belief system.<\/p>\n

When learning is something people squeeze in between meetings, it becomes background noise<\/strong>. Something viewed\u2014and experienced\u2014as separate from \u201creal work.\u201d<\/p>\n

The advice to make time for workplace training sounds helpful. But it rests on a flawed premise.<\/p>\n

It assumes work and learning are two different things. But in reality, learning happens all the time.<\/p>\n

\"Quote<\/p>\n

The stated belief vs. the operating reality<\/h3>\n

On paper, it looks like this:<\/p>\n

Work is productive.
\nTraining is developmental.
\nWork drives results.
\nTraining supports results.<\/p>\n

But in practice, the equation often looks more like this:<\/p>\n

Work = productive.
\nTraining = interruption.
\nLearning = budget line.<\/p>\n

When learning is reduced to a budget line, it gets managed like one. And success becomes a series of line items<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

How many people completed the training session
\nHow many online courses were assigned
\nHow many hours were logged<\/p>\n

These numbers are easy to report. And anything easy to report feels easier to defend.<\/p>\n

Completion isn\u2019t the same as learning impact<\/h3>\n

\"Why<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s where the \u201cmake time for training\u201d advice quietly reinforces the problem.<\/p>\n

If training is separate from work, it has to justify its time. And the easiest way to justify time is through checkbox training logic.<\/p>\n

Checkbox training treats learning as something to finish\u2014not something to improve. It measures attendance. Tracks completion. Reports hours logged.<\/p>\n

But it rarely asks the only question that matters<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

Did this change performance?<\/p>\n

The hidden cost of siloed training<\/h2>\n

For learning to have real impact, it must show up in day-to-day performance. Otherwise, measuring learning effectiveness becomes a reporting exercise instead of a business conversation.<\/p>\n

For HR managers accountable for compliance and readiness\u2014and L&D leaders under pressure to prove learning impact\u2014that distinction matters.<\/p>\n

When training is treated as an interruption, it rarely holds up under pressure.<\/p>\n

Completion rates may look strong. Satisfaction scores may look positive. But once the training session is archived, nothing changes.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The same skill gaps show up in performance reviews.<\/p>\n

The same mistakes repeat.<\/p>\n

The same compliance risks resurface.<\/p>\n

This is learning debt<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

And like any debt, it compounds.<\/p>\n

The result?<\/p>\n