Learning Before, During, After: When Does Learning Actually Happen?

Let's imagine a fairly ordinary situation.

An employee completes a course on negotiation.

They watch the videos.

Read the materials.

Answer the questions.

Get a certificate.

A week later, they have a meeting with a client.

And they negotiate exactly the same way they did before.

So when was the learning supposed to happen?

It's a simple question, but the longer I work with corporate learning, the more it seems to me that we too often treat learning as a separate event.

A person sits down at a computer.

Opens the LMS.

Takes a course.

Finishes it.

Learning has happened.

And then the real work begins.

I find a different model much more useful: learning before, learning during, learning after.

Not as three stages of one course, but as three points where learning can happen around a real task.

Before

Before doing a task, a person may need some preparation.

For example, a manager has a difficult meeting with a client tomorrow.

What do they really need today?

Perhaps not a two-hour negotiation course.

They might simply need to:

• look at three typical scenarios;
• refresh the key principles;
• take a short self-check;
• review a few examples;
• understand what to pay attention to;
• prepare questions for the meeting.

That's learning before.

And this is where diagnostics can work particularly well.

If the person already knows everything they need, why make them take the entire course?

If they don't, perhaps they need more substantial preparation.

It is a fairly simple idea: learning can begin before the actual work starts.

During

But the most interesting part starts when the person is actually doing the job.

They are already working.

And this is where they may need help.

Not a course.

Not a webinar.

Not a 70-slide presentation.

Just a prompt.

A checklist.

A template.

An example.

An answer to a question.

Sometimes, simply someone they can ask.

Now imagine that this support is available directly in the system where the employee is working.

A sales manager is in the CRM preparing a proposal for a client.

Right there, they might see:

“Things to check before sending the proposal.”

Or:

“Example phrases for this type of client.”

Or:

“What to do when the client objects to the price.”

This is a very different approach to learning.

The employee doesn't have to remember that a course exists somewhere.

They have a task — and they get support.

That's why I like the idea of learning where work happens.

Not because the LMS should disappear.

But because some learning logically belongs where the need for it actually appears.

After

There is a third point — after the work.

The employee has had the meeting.

Made the presentation.

Talked to the employee.

Solved the customer's problem.

And this is often where our attention ends.

Even though this is exactly when some very useful material for development becomes available.

What worked?

What didn't?

What could have been done differently?

How did the client react?

What did the manager say?

Which mistakes keep repeating?

What should be tried next time?

If none of this happens, the experience simply remains an experience.

But it could become learning.

That's what learning after is about.

And again, it doesn't necessarily mean another course.

It can be a short reflection, feedback, a case review, or another attempt at the same task.

Or even just a question:

“What would you do differently if you had to run this meeting again?”

Sometimes that's enough to start learning.

And this is where the LMS becomes just one part of the system

I think the problem begins when we expect the LMS to handle this entire process.

An LMS is very good at storing courses.

But people's work doesn't happen in the LMS.

It happens in a CRM, ERP, email, messaging apps, spreadsheets, production systems, or in a meeting with a client.

So the question for L&D gradually changes.

Not:

“How do we make sure the employee completes the training?”

But:

“How do we help the employee perform the task well?”

Only then can we decide which part of that support should actually be learning.

The course isn't going anywhere

At the same time, I wouldn't conclude that courses are no longer necessary.

They are.

Sometimes proper training is simply unavoidable.

If someone becomes a manager for the first time, they may genuinely need a structured program.

If a company launches a new product, employees need to learn about it.

If legislation changes, mandatory training may be required.

If a new professional field is emerging, systematic learning can be essential.

But the course becomes one element of development, rather than development itself.

And I think that's the main point.

Learning before, during, after allows us to look at learning not as an event, but as a process around work.

Before a task, we can prepare.

During it, we can support.

After it, we can help the person reflect and reinforce what they've learned.

And then we return to the next task.

It becomes a much more natural cycle.

And perhaps this is how learning gradually stops being a separate place employees are sent to.

It becomes part of the work itself.