Rethinking Training: When Development Fails by Design

The Problem Isn’t the Trainee — It’s the System

We talk a lot about “upskilling,” “capacity building,” and “employee engagement.” But let’s be honest: in too many organizations, training is just a checkbox.

Workshops that don’t match real needs. Trainers flown in who don’t know the context. Modules that ignore language barriers, gender norms, or structural inequities.
And when the results fall flat, the blame goes straight to the trainee:
“They weren’t motivated.”
“They didn’t implement.”
“They lack commitment.”
Rarely do we ask: Was the training ever designed to succeed?

Training as a Mirror of Power

In the Middle East — and globally — many training programs are designed from the top-down.
Leaders decide what employees “need.” Funders set KPIs. External consultants draft modules based on Western models, then translate them into Arabic and hope for the best.

But training is not neutral.
What you choose to teach — and what you choose to ignore — reflects institutional power.
For example:

• A leadership program that never addresses gender equity? That’s a choice.

• A communication training that excludes frontline staff? That’s a choice.

• A youth development course that teaches “soft skills” but ignores trauma or migration challenges? That’s a systemic gap.

In these cases, training becomes less about growth — and more about control.

Development That Doesn’t Translate

Imagine walking into a workshop on “resilience” after surviving war, economic collapse, or displacement. The facilitator opens with a TED Talk reference and a “growth mindset” icebreaker.
No acknowledgment of lived experience. No contextual grounding. No emotional safety.

That happens more often than we’d like to admit — especially in humanitarian or NGO-led programs.

And it raises a hard truth:
Development models exported into fragile or conflict-affected regions often fail — not because people resist learning, but because the learning isn’t rooted in reality.

We can’t talk about leadership in a context where youth can’t vote.
We can’t talk about professional development without addressing visa systems, border restrictions, or class barriers.
We can’t talk about innovation if we punish failure.

So What Does Ethical Training Look Like?

1. Start with listening.
   Real needs assessment begins with curiosity, not assumptions. What do people actually want to learn — and what do they already know?

2. Localize the model.
   Don’t just translate content — transform it. Respect cultural nuance, socio-political context, and local expertise.

3. Acknowledge structural barriers.
   Sometimes, the obstacle isn’t the trainee. It’s the environment. Be honest about it.

4. Make reflection part of the outcome.
   We measure skills gained — but what about mindset shifts? Emotional breakthroughs? Systemic critique?

5. Center voices from the margin.
   Involve women, youth, displaced people, and workers in shaping the curriculum. Not as case studies — as contributors.

From Capacity Building to Collective Power

The most impactful training programs don’t just build individual skills — they build collective consciousness.

They help people see how they’re connected. How systems shape their lives. How collaboration can be a form of resistance.
In these spaces, development is no longer about fitting people into broken systems. It’s about giving people the tools to rebuild those systems from the ground up.

That’s the difference between training that polishes resumes — and training that transforms communities.

Final Thought: Stop Teaching People to “Be Better” — Start Designing Systems That Deserve Them

It’s time to reframe the conversation.

Don’t ask:
“How do we train people to adapt?”

Ask instead:
“How do we train systems to be more human?”

Because the goal of development isn’t just to make people more “employable” or “efficient.”
The goal is to restore agency, dignity, and connection — in workplaces, classrooms, and societies.

When training does that, it’s no longer a checkbox.
It’s a catalyst.