Maybe you have done this. A manager asks for a one-day course, you design something solid, deliver it well, get your sea of smiley faces… and everyone moves on.
Job done. Except it is not. Six weeks later, nothing much has changed.
The problem is not always the design. It is often the label. When you call it “a one-day course”, you lock everyone’s expectations into that single day. If you want behaviour change, you must design a programme spread over time, with most of the work happening back in the job. One day is enough to introduce ideas, not enough to embed them so they show up reliably in day-to-day work.
Here is the uncomfortable bit: stakeholders schedule one day, budget for one day, and mentally “close the file” after one day. Realistically, people might need the equivalent of two more days spread over a few months to practise, reflect and adjust in their flow of work.
So, what if you stopped selling “a one-day course” and started talking about “a three-day programme – one day in the room, two days in the job”? How would that change the conversations you have with stakeholders? What would you design differently before and after the event?
Your task for this week:
- Take one existing course and quietly reframe it as a programme in your own mind: one day in the room, two days in the workflow.
- Write down, in simple language, what those two days of practice, reflection and manager support could actually look like – in tiny chunks, over weeks, not in a block.
- When you are ready, test that framing with one friendly stakeholder and notice how the discussion shifts.
If you would like to dig deeper into this idea of “what happens after the room”, you can read the full article here: Why the real test of any training isn’t what happens in the room.
