Why you need to be selective
Learning in the flow of work has quickly become one of the most popular ideas in learning and development (L&D). There’s a good reason for that. We promise speed. Relevance. Disruption is kept to a minimum. Support when you need it. In the right circumstances, it can do all of that. But the problem is growing.
Many organizations do not use learning in the flow of work as a targeted solution. They are using it as the default response. And in doing so, they are making the same mistakes they made on the course. It’s just a different way of doing things.
Patterns I’ve seen so far
For many years, the default answer to most performance problems was “build the course.” Now, in many organizations, the default is changing to “get in the flow of work.” At first glance, this feels like progress. Sounds more modern. It’s more efficient. It’s closer to how people actually work. However, the underlying decision-making logic often remains the same. The modality is still initially selected. The problem is still defined second. That’s where things start to fall apart.
Modality is not a strategy
If something is delivered like this:
Courses Workshops Work Aids Checklists Prompts Libraries or Embed Directly into Workflows
…None of those choices is inherently right or wrong. They are shipping methods. They have meaning only with respect to:
necessary abilities. Conditions under which performance occurs. Environmental constraints.
When modality becomes the starting point, organizations risk solving the wrong problem in the most efficient way possible.
Things that are actually effective when learned in the flow of work
Learning in the flow of work is very effective when the competency already exists. Ideal for:
Remember when you need it. Enhance known processes. Reduce friction during execution. Improved consistency.
In situations like this, the problem isn’t that people don’t know what to do. The problem is:
They can’t remember it at that moment. They don’t have easy access to it. This process is complex enough to require support.
Here, building support directly into your workflow is not only convenient, but often the best option.
place to break
This problem occurs when organizations expect their workflow solutions to be more effective than designed. These are commonly used in situations such as:
judgement. decision making. Prioritization. Adapting under pressure.
In such cases, performance depends on functionality that must be present before the moment of execution. Checklists, prompts, and embedded guides cannot fully compensate for a lack of basic competency. In other words, it creates dependence. At worst, it creates the illusion of competence. This is especially risky in AI-enabled environments. In an AI-enabled environment, tools can speed up output, but they can’t ensure quality or relevance without human judgment.
The real questions organizations should ask
Instead of asking, “Can I include this in my work flow?” a better question is, “What level of competency does this task require? And when will I need that competency?” From there, the decision becomes clearer.
If functionality must exist before performance → it must be built. If you have the ability but need reinforcement → Support is available. If the problem is not competency → it needs to be solved elsewhere.
This shifts the conversation from modality to performance.
Risk of replacing one default with another
There are subtle but important risks to current trends. You may believe that your organization is evolving by moving away from your course. However, simply replacing one default with another does not fundamentally change anything. They are still:
Choosing a solution too quickly. Skip problem definition. Optimize for delivery, not performance.
The tools look different. Often no results are obtained.
more useful way of thinking
Learning in the flow of work is not a strategy. This is one option within a broader set of interventions. A more effective approach is to separate the following three decisions:
What performance needs to be improved? What functionality is required to support that performance? What is the least intrusive way to achieve or support that functionality?
Only then does the modality become meaningful. And often the answer includes a combination of:
Pre-built features. Support built into your workflow. Clarity in expectations and processes.
final thoughts
Learning in the flow of work is valuable. However, it is not universally applicable and is not a substitute for capacity building. When used intentionally, targeted learning within the flow of work reduces friction and improves execution. If used indiscriminately, it risks masking deeper gaps and creating a false sense of confidence.
The goal is not to choose the latest modality. It is about choosing the appropriate intervention according to the level of performance that the job actually requires. It requires a different kind of discipline. It starts with the problem, not the delivery method.
