Why generic training undermines trust

Here's a truth that makes people uncomfortable: Most corporate training on psychological safety is performative theater. I've watched organizations spend thousands on workshops where employees practice "vulnerability" with strangers, then return to workplaces where speaking up still feels like career suicide. The fundamental flaw? These trainings ignore the very power dynamics that make psychological safety necessary in the first place. You can't build trust in a conference room when the real fear lives in Monday morning meetings where questioning the boss means risking your next promotion. You can't practice psychological safety in artificial environments and expect it to transfer to cultures built on hierarchy and competition. Here's what traditional training misses: - It assumes "we're all equals" while ignoring actual power structures - Managers feel awkward showing their own gaps, so real dialogue never happens - One-off courses can't address the deeper organizational systems that breed fear - Token ground rules don't translate to genuine trust when stakes are high The research is damning: only 1 in 4 leaders actually creates psychologically safe teams. That's not a training problem - that's a systems problem. Real psychological safety isn't taught in workshops. It's built through consistent organizational change that addresses power imbalances, rewards truth-telling over comfort, and makes vulnerability a leadership competency, not a training checkbox. Until we stop treating psychological safety like a soft skill you can learn in a seminar and start recognizing it as the foundation for human dignity at work, we'll keep wondering why our expensive trainings don't stick. What's your experience with workplace psychological safety training?

Retraining is the go-to solution for mistakes. But should it be? If someone didn’t follow a procedure the first time, why is retraining assumed to be the fix? Think about it. If the original training didn’t work, how will repeating the same training, with the same content, in the same conditions, suddenly be effective? Let’s break it down.↴ Imagine an operator forgetting a step in the process. This operator has done the job perfectly a thousand times before, but today he slipped. The response? Retraining. But does this really make sense? Is the problem a lack of knowledge, or is there something deeper at play? Here’s the truth: Most 'human errors' aren’t caused by a lack of training. They’re indicators of deeper, systemic issues. Maybe the procedure is too complicated. Maybe the environment is too distracting. Or maybe, the root cause has nothing to do with training at all. Retraining should only be used when the mistake is due to a knowledge gap. Yet, too often, it’s misused as a blanket solution. It’s slapped on as both a corrective and preventive action, without digging into the real cause. This approach not only wastes time and resources but also ignores the underlying issues that lead to errors in the first place. Here’s why this matters: → Retraining when not needed undermines trust in your training system. → It shifts blame to training, ignoring other possible causes. → It doesn’t address the actual problem, meaning the issue is likely to recur. → Over-reliance on retraining dilutes its effectiveness when it’s truly needed. → It’s a lazy solution that overlooks the bigger picture. So, what should we do instead? Before defaulting to retraining, take a step back. Ask yourself:  →What’s the real issue here? →Is it a knowledge problem, or is there something else going on? Look at the process, the environment, and the system as a whole. Dig deeper to find the true root cause. Retraining isn’t a magic wand. It’s time to stop using it as a catch-all solution and start addressing the real problems. I was in this situation last week, how do you handle similar situations?

Sexism. Racism. Manipulation. All alive and well in workplaces that think they’ve “ticked the DEI box.” When systems are weak and leadership is unclear, people will always find ways to manipulate the gaps. That’s human nature. I’ve seen it happen when: 🥲A comment gets labelled racist or sexist, and leaders don’t know how to respond 🥲Concerns are raised, but nobody trusts the process 🥲Accusations are minimised, dismissed, or weaponised The result? Confusion. Mistrust. Leaders firefighting instead of leading. Here’s the truth: it’s not always bad people, it’s bad systems and poor leadership. And that’s exactly why performative DEI training solves nothing. Most big training providers churn out generic, box-ticking sessions. They’ll tell you what the law says, maybe run through a few scenarios and then leave you to figure out the messy, human reality on your own. That’s where I stand apart. I don’t gloss over the uncomfortable stuff. I take leaders into the real world, the grey areas, the difficult conversations, the emotions, the biases. Because until leaders are rewired, systems stay broken. 👉 How many of you have had “DEI training” and still see sexism, racism and poor leadership play out in your workplace? If your training isn’t changing behaviours and fixing the system, it’s performative. And performative solves nothing. #FairnessInclusionRespect #FutureOfWork #ConstructionLeadership #LeadershipMatters #CultureChange

Have you ever found a pair of shoes that fit everyone perfectly? No, right? Yet many companies still rely on generic training programs, expecting them to fit all employees? Here’s the reality: ❌ Generic training = disengaged, uninspired teams ✅ Customized training = empowered, high-performing individuals In my 7+ years as a trainer, I’ve witnessed firsthand how tailored programs can transform teams by boosting not just skills but morale & confidence. Here’s what I’ve found works best: 1️⃣ Listen to your team’s specific needs. You can’t solve a problem you don’t understand. 2️⃣ Create tailored solutions for real challenges. Make it practical, not theoretical. 3️⃣ Deliver actionable, relatable learning experiences. Theory is forgettable; application sticks. No two teams are the same. So why should their growth paths be? If you truly want training that delivers results, start by focusing on people, not just processes. Agree? Or have you seen a different approach work wonders? I’d love to hear your thoughts below!