Are We Developing Employees – or Wasting Money?

Why Do Danish Companies Spend Billions on Employee Development Without Improving Performance?

When Learning Becomes an Activity Instead of a Result

There is rarely a shortage of development activities in Danish workplaces. Managers are sent on leadership programs. Specialists earn certifications. Employees participate in workshops on collaboration, feedback, communication, well-being, and innovation.

Yet an uncomfortable question remains:

Why do so many organizations find that performance, culture, and results improve only marginally, even after massive investments in learning?

That question is far more controversial than it sounds.

Because if the answer is yes, it challenges not only HR departments. It challenges the very way we think about development.

The Great Development Industry

Development has become a given. No CEO would publicly say that employee development is unimportant. On the contrary, learning has become an almost unquestioned good. But perhaps that is precisely why critical questions are asked too rarely. How do we actually measure success? By satisfaction? Course participation? Certifications? Activity on learning platforms? Or by genuine behavioral change?

For decades, research on learning transfer has pointed to the same challenge: learning only creates value when it is translated into action and sustained over time in the workplace. It is not enough to learn something. It must be applied. And kept in use. That sounds obvious. Yet this is often where the chain breaks down.

We Need to Close the Competency Gaps

The dominant approach in organizations is based on a simple logic: identify what an employee lacks, develop it, and repeat the process. This is the thinking behind much of our education system, recruitment practices, and performance management.

If a manager is poor at conflict resolution, we send them on a conflict management course.

If an employee struggles with structure and organization, we offer a personal planning course.

If an organization lacks innovative capacity, we establish innovation programs.

The logic is rational. The problem is that rationality is not necessarily the same as effectiveness.

We Are Developing the Wrong Things

The strengths- and talent-based movement challenges this entire premise. Not because competency development is irrelevant, but because, according to this way of thinking, people develop most rapidly and create the greatest value where they already possess natural talents and inclinations. From this perspective, organizations make a fundamental mistake:

They spend a disproportionate amount of resources trying to make people acceptable in their weak areas, while investing too little in the areas where they have the potential to become exceptional.

It is a perspective that turns conventional development logic upside down. If talent acts as an accelerator for learning, the question suddenly becomes: Why do we spend most of our time on what develops most slowly?

But the Strengths-Based Perspective Also Has a Problem

The talent movement is often portrayed as the modern alternative to traditional competency-based thinking. But that narrative is too simplistic. Even the most strengths-based organization cannot function without minimum levels of competence. A CFO cannot ignore finance. A project manager cannot ignore coordination. A leader cannot ignore relationships.

Therefore, the real discussion is not a question of strengths versus competencies. It is a question of proportions. How much energy should be spent compensating for weaknesses? And how much should be invested in unlocking strengths? That is a far more interesting question. And a far more strategic one.

Perhaps the Real Problem Lies Somewhere Else

In the middle of the debate between competencies and talents, a third explanation is often overlooked. Namely, that the problem may not be learning at all. Perhaps the problem is culture.

Amy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety shows that people learn more when they feel able to ask questions, admit mistakes, and challenge existing practices without fear of consequences.

If employees return from a course to an organization where new ideas are met with skepticism, where mistakes are hidden, and where deviations from established practices are socially punished, the impact of learning will be limited. Not because the employee did not learn something. But because the organization did not learn anything. At that point, development becomes a cultural issue rather than a training issue.

The Overlooked Leadership Challenge

Perhaps this is where the greatest leadership challenge lies. Not in buying more courses. Not in building more learning platforms. Not in creating more competency frameworks. But in creating environments where new knowledge is actually allowed to change practice.

If the culture rewards stability more than learning, even the best training will have limited impact. And if the culture supports experimentation, reflection, and strengths-based collaboration, even small development initiatives can have significant effects.

Have We Fallen in Love with Development?

Perhaps the most provocative thought of all is that organizations have fallen in love with the idea of development. Development signals progress. Development signals responsible leadership. Development signals investment in people. But signals are not necessarily results. And perhaps for far too long, we have been more concerned with learning activities than with learning outcomes.

The Open Question

If future competitiveness increasingly depends on people’s ability to learn, adapt, and create value through their strengths, should organizations continue to invest the majority of their development efforts in closing competency gaps?

Or is it time to shift the focus from people’s deficiencies to their potential, and from more courses to creating better conditions for learning to actually become action?