Over the past few years, many of us working in learning and development have noticed the same thing: fewer people sign up for training, and fewer of those who do actually turn up. Talking to clients, this isn’t just about cultural agility. It applies to leadership, communication and even compliance training.

It’s tempting to explain it away with “people just don’t care anymore”. I don’t think that’s true. The way we learn at work is changing, and we may be slower to adapt than we realise.

The 30-second answer

Let’s look at a situation that might sound familiar. A project lead in Australia is preparing for a call with her delivery team in Bangalore, India. A deadline has been missed, and nobody flagged it. She wonders: is this a lack of commitment, or is something else going on?

Ten years ago, she might have waited for the next cross-cultural training session. Today, she can ask an AI tool and get a reasonable explanation of high-context and low-context communication in thirty seconds.

And why wouldn’t she? She has a problem to solve, and the information is readily available. She learns when she needs to, about the problem in front of her.

But here’s the distinction: having an explanation is not the same as knowing what to do with it.

AI can explain cultural frameworks, suggest alternative interpretations and even help rehearse a difficult conversation. What it cannot reliably do is ensure that someone has questioned their assumptions, exercised sound judgement and chosen an appropriate response in a real-world situation.

That is where training needs to evolve.

Let’s be fair to participants, too. Leaner teams, hybrid calendars and, in some cases, memories of programs that changed nothing make staying away a rather rational choice. If training feels disconnected from the challenges people face at work, why should they prioritise it?

What are we trying?

So we’ve been experimenting. Rather than relying on longer programmes heavy on theory, we’re exploring how to help participants develop just enough understanding to recognise what might be happening, ask better questions and make more informed choices when working across cultures.

One format we’re using is a two-hour workshop built around a realistic workplace scenario, unfolding in three parts.

Returning to our project lead, we might begin by asking participants to consider why the deadline was missed and why nobody raised the issue. Was it a lack of commitment? Unclear responsibilities? A reluctance to deliver bad news? Different expectations about how problems should be communicated?

As the scenario unfolds, we introduce work practices such as leading and deciding, trusting, communicating and disagreeing. Together, we explore how different expectations can lead to misunderstandings, and how our first interpretation of another person’s behaviour may not be the only plausible one.

The scenarios need to feel real. That means tailoring them to the client organisation, using relevant countries, familiar job titles and situations participants can recognise from their own working lives.

Participants tell me they recognise the situations and the roles being played out, and that they can see how the learning applies to their work. That’s encouraging. But recognition is only the beginning. The real question is whether it changes how they approach the next difficult conversation.

We’ve also realised that two hours is the event, not the learning.

In some cases, we’ve added a short pre-task in which participants share a real workplace challenge. In others, we follow up a few weeks later to explore what they have tried, what happened and what they might do differently next time.

The intention is to create a bridge between understanding something in a workshop and applying it when it matters.

Training and coaching: different jobs

The distinction between training and coaching matters more now.

Training can establish a shared foundation: a common language, new perspectives and the opportunity to learn from colleagues in the room. Coaching starts with an individual’s particular challenge: the call on Monday, the colleague who stays silent, or the decision that keeps being postponed.

The two can complement each other. A workshop helps people recognise patterns and explore different approaches; coaching helps them work through what those insights mean in their own circumstances.

This is also where AI can become a useful learning partner rather than simply a competitor.

Between sessions, participants can use an AI tool to explore alternative explanations, rehearse a difficult conversation or prepare for an upcoming meeting. They can then bring their thinking back to a coach or colleague for discussion.

But there is a catch. AI works with the account it is given, and that account may be incomplete or biased. It may offer several possibilities, but it cannot reliably establish which explanation is correct in a particular situation.

A coach can question the assumptions behind the story, ask what evidence supports a particular interpretation and explore what else might be happening. In intercultural work, this matters enormously. Cultural frameworks can help us generate hypotheses about behaviour, but they cannot tell us with certainty why an individual acted as they did.

The aim is not to find the correct cultural explanation. It is to develop the judgement to ask better questions, consider alternative perspectives and respond more thoughtfully.

One-on-one learning is not automatically better, either. It is more personal, but it can be harder to scale, and it loses something valuable: the opportunity to learn from colleagues’ experiences. Hearing how others have interpreted or handled a similar situation can be an important part of developing cultural agility.

What this means for us

The tension is real. Cultural agility involves questioning assumptions, unlearning familiar responses and becoming more comfortable with ambiguity. These capabilities don’t develop through tips and tricks alone.

Short, practical formats only work if they respect that depth rather than trade it away. The aim is not to make learning superficial; it is to make it more relevant, focused and connected to what happens beyond the workshop.

My recommendation to fellow trainers is simple: let the 30-second answer do the explaining, and spend our time on what comes next.

Help people question their first interpretations, explore alternatives, practise difficult conversations and apply what they learn to real situations. Combine short, practical workshops that build shared understanding with opportunities for individual reflection, coaching and AI-assisted practice.

We are still experimenting, and I certainly don’t have all the answers. But if AI is making information easier to access, perhaps our contribution needs to shift towards helping people use that information with greater judgement.

Because understanding something in thirty seconds is one thing. Knowing what to do with it on Monday is another.