I have seen organisations invest significant time and money in learning and development. They purchase platforms, engage external providers, build comprehensive programmes and carefully curate content. Yet despite these efforts, many still find themselves asking the same question a few months later:
Why hasn't anything really changed?
When I hear this question, the instinctive response is often to review the content. Was it engaging enough? Was it relevant? Did people enjoy it? Those questions matter, but I do not think they always address the real issue.
In my experience, poor content is rarely the main reason a learning programme struggles. More often, people simply do not feel enough ownership of it.
When learning is designed by a small group and delivered to everyone else, it can quickly become something that people attend rather than something they actively invest in. Participants complete the training, return to their day jobs and the momentum fades. Managers, meanwhile, often find themselves expected to reinforce learning they had little involvement in creating.
The programme may be well received at the time, but that initial enthusiasm does not always translate into much changing afterwards.
Learning Should Not Be Something That Happens To People
One theme that has featured in several of my recent articles is the importance of involving people in shaping the experiences that affect them.
In my article on performance improvement plans, I argued that performance improves when employees help create the plan rather than having it imposed upon them. Similarly, when writing about reward and recognition, I explored how engagement increases when people feel they have a voice in defining what meaningful recognition looks like.
Learning and development is no different.
People are far more likely to engage with learning when they have had some influence over it. Once learners and managers are invited to contribute, they are no longer simply turning up for something designed elsewhere; they have a reason to care about whether it works.
What I Mean By Co-Creation
When I talk about co-creation, I sometimes find the term is misunderstood. Some people assume it means handing responsibility for learning design entirely to employees. Others worry it will create inconsistency or dilute expertise.
For me, co-creation is really about partnership.
Learning professionals, subject matter experts, managers and learners each bring different perspectives and expertise. Co-creation recognises that the most effective learning experiences are developed through collaboration rather than in isolation.
Learners contribute insight into the challenges they face, the skills they want to develop and the barriers they encounter in applying learning. Managers bring an understanding of performance expectations, organisational priorities and operational realities. Learning specialists contribute expertise in instructional design, behavioural change and adult learning principles.
The result is not a programme that is learner-led or manager-led. It is a programme informed by the people who will ultimately be responsible for making it successful.
Put simply, co-creation means designing learning with people rather than for them.
Why Co-Creation Matters
It Creates Genuine Ownership
I have found that most people care more about something they have helped to build.
When learners contribute to identifying development needs, shaping objectives or influencing content, the programme immediately feels more relevant. It is no longer another initiative being delivered by HR or Learning and Development. It becomes something connected to their own challenges, aspirations and success.
Ownership is difficult to mandate, but remarkably easy to encourage when people have a meaningful voice.
It Increases Relevance
One of the most common frustrations I hear about workplace learning is that it can feel disconnected from reality.
Generic case studies and theoretical examples have their place, but they rarely compete with the challenges employees face every day.
When programmes are co-created, real organisational issues naturally find their way into the learning experience. Participants bring current challenges, customer situations, leadership dilemmas and examples from their own roles. Learning becomes grounded in reality rather than abstraction.
The conversation shifts from “This is what the model says” to “This is how we can use it here.”
It Improves Learning Transfer
From what I have seen, perhaps the most overlooked benefit of co-creation is the impact it has on managers.
Too often, managers are expected to reinforce learning after a programme without ever having been involved in its design or delivery. They are handed a briefing note, a set of slides or a discussion guide and asked to support implementation.
When managers are involved from the outset, they understand why the learning matters, which behaviours it is intended to develop and how success will be judged.
As a result, reinforcing learning through coaching, feedback and everyday conversations becomes a natural extension of their role rather than an additional task to remember.
What Co-Creation Looks Like In Practice
Co-creation does not mean handing complete control of the programme to participants. Nor does it mean abandoning expert input or established learning principles.
Instead, I see it as creating deliberate opportunities for learners and managers to influence the learning journey.
Before The Programme
Before I start designing content, I want to understand what people are dealing with in practice: the challenges they face, the skills that would make the greatest difference and what has stopped previous learning from taking hold.
Simple focus groups, listening sessions, pulse surveys or interviews can provide insights that dramatically improve relevance and engagement.
Managers should also be involved in defining the behaviours and outcomes the programme is designed to influence. Their perspective can help ensure the learning supports both individual development and organisational objectives.
During The Programme
Create opportunities for participants to contribute rather than simply consume.
I encourage learners to bring real situations to discussions and workshops, with space built in for peer-to-peer learning. When participants share examples, successes and lessons learned, some of the most valuable learning often comes from the experience already present in the room.
Regular feedback loops can help refine the programme as it progresses rather than waiting until the end to discover what could have been improved.
Managers can also play an active role during delivery, whether by co-facilitating sessions, sharing practical examples or helping to connect learning concepts with the realities of the workplace.
After The Programme
This is where many learning initiatives succeed or fail.
Learning transfer is strengthened when managers have simple tools and prompts to continue conversations after formal sessions have ended. This does not require lengthy review meetings or complex frameworks.
A simple question such as “What have you tried since the workshop?” can be far more powerful than another training module.
Follow-up conversations, peer discussions, success stories and practical application all help transform learning from a one-off event into lasting behavioural change.
Keeping Learning Alive
One of the greatest risks facing any learning initiative is that the energy generated during the programme gradually disappears once participants return to the demands of their daily roles.
The workshop may have been engaging. The content may have been relevant. Participants may have left feeling motivated. But learning is not reinforced through enthusiasm alone.
If organisations want learning to create lasting change, they need to create opportunities for people to continue learning together long after the programme itself has ended.
This is where learning groups, peer networks, communities of practice and action learning sets can add enormous value.
Bringing together people in similar roles, at similar levels or facing similar challenges creates opportunities for ongoing reflection, problem-solving and support. Participants can discuss what is working, where they are struggling and how they are applying their learning in practice.
In my experience, these conversations can be every bit as valuable as the original programme. When people feel safe enough to talk honestly, they can explore what they have tried, where they are struggling and what they might do differently. That openness also makes it easier to share mistakes, test new ideas and learn from one another.
Action learning can be particularly powerful. Rather than discussing hypothetical scenarios, participants bring real workplace issues and use structured questioning, challenge and reflection to help one another find solutions. This ensures learning remains practical, relevant and immediately applicable.
Perhaps most importantly, these groups help normalise learning as an ongoing process rather than a one-off event. Development becomes part of how people work, think and solve problems together.
The learning continues because the conversation continues.
The Role Of Leadership
For me, co-creation is not just a way of designing learning. It reflects a broader belief that people are more likely to support change when they have had a genuine voice in shaping it.
The most effective organisations understand that engagement grows when people have a voice. Whether designing a learning programme, improving performance, shaping organisational values or recognising success, involving people in the process creates stronger commitment to the outcome.
Leaders often tell me they want people to take more ownership. My question is whether employees have been given enough opportunity to help shape the solutions they are expected to support.
Ownership rarely appears after launch. It is usually built during design.
A Final Thought
When learning programmes fail to deliver lasting impact, organisations often respond by revisiting the content or trying to make it more engaging. I would look first at whether learners and managers had any meaningful role in shaping it.
Yet I believe the real issue may not be what is being taught. It may be who is helping to create it.
Organisations are more likely to see a return from learning and development when they move away from designing learning for people and involve them in shaping it instead.
They involve learners and managers in shaping the journey, create opportunities for peer learning and ongoing discussion, and build environments where development continues long after the programme itself has finished.