On-the-job training is one of the most common ways people learn in the workplace, yet it is also one of the least structured. New starts are often shown “how things work” informally, without a clear plan, timeline, or shared understanding of what competence actually looks like. When informal training isn’t formalised, people may assume they are fully trained long before they are. Not through fault or lack of effort, but because learning gaps remain invisible. This can limit performance, undermine confidence, and increase risk, particularly for neurodivergent employees who benefit from clarity, timing, and transparency in workplace training.
Why Informal Training Works – and Where It Falls Short
Informal on-the-job training works because it:
- happens in real contexts,
- builds relationships and trust,
- allows learning to be paced naturally, and
- encourages observation and questioning
However, without structure, it can also:
- leave gaps in knowledge that go unnoticed,
- create false confidence or quiet anxiety,
- rely on memory rather than evidence, and
- make progress invisible to both the trainee and the manager.
These risks grow in complex roles, regulated settings, or where decisions affect safety, finances, or people.
The Importance of Knowing Where You Are
One of the most overlooked elements of training is orientation. Not just what you’re learning, but where you are in the learning journey.
Knowing:
- what has been covered,
- what is still to come, and
- what competence looks like at each stage,
gives people confidence, clarity, and motivation.
Autonomy is a wonderful thing. However, autonomy without sufficient knowledge can:
- limit what someone can achieve in a role,
- lead to uninformed or risky decisions,
- create stress disguised as confidence, and
- put individuals and organisations at risk.
True autonomy comes after understanding, not before it.
A Neurodivergent Perspective: Why Structure Creates Safety
As a neurodivergent person, knowing where I am in training gives me a sense of security and confidence. It also gives me permission not to know everything yet.
Undefined or endless learning lowers motivation. Visible, finite learning is energising. Knowing what’s left to learn reduces uncertainty and builds trust.
Training becomes something you can tick off a list, rather than a guessing game about whether you’re “supposed” to know something by now.
Structure doesn’t remove flexibility. It removes unnecessary anxiety.
Formalising the Informal: A Simple, Human Framework
Formal training doesn’t have to mean classrooms, manuals, or rigid programmes.
The main recommendations for successful on-the-job training are to make learning visible, use clear checklists or learning maps, schedule training close to real needs, and review progress regularly. This ensures clarity, builds confidence, and supports both neurodivergent and neurotypical staff.
That might look like:
- a shared checklist of role-specific tasks,
- a simple table of responsibilities, and/or
- clear review points over time.
Training as a Living Checklist
| Task / Skill | Training Given | Practised | Competent | Review Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| System navigation | ☑️ | ☑️ | ⬜ | 1 mth |
| Core daily process | ☑️ | ☑️ | ☑️ | 2 mths |
| Handling exceptions | ☑️ | ⬜ | ⬜ | 3 mths |
| Independent decisions | ⬜ | ⬜ | ⬜ | 6 mths |
This approach:
- makes progress visible,
- normalises being “not there yet”,
- supports honest conversations about confidence, and
- protects both the trainee and the organisation.
When Training Happens at the Wrong Time
Another overlooked issue in workplace training is timing.
Training delivered too early (for example, long before a task is actually needed) can be a waste of time, energy, and sometimes money. Learning that isn’t applied in the short term fades quickly, particularly when tasks are complex or infrequently used.
I’ve worked in organisations where organising training appeared to be a tick-box exercise in itself. People were trained on systems or processes regardless of whether they would use them in the immediate future. In some cases, an informal conversation with HR or Health & Safety led to a certificate stating that someone was “trained” in a particular area.
On paper, this looked compliant. In practice, it wasn’t.
Months later, when the task genuinely needed to be completed, the training was no longer accessible or relevant. Further help was required, yet responsibility was pushed back onto the individual. After all, they had undergone the training. There was a certificate to prove it.
This doesn’t build competence. It creates risk.
Timing Matters as Much as Content
Effective training is not just about what is taught, but when.
Training is most valuable when it is:
- delivered close to real-world application,
- reinforced through practice, and
- reviewed after experience has been gained.
When this doesn’t happen, training becomes symbolic rather than practical, and certificates become a poor substitute for genuine confidence and capability.
Right-Time vs Wrong-Time Training
| Wrong-Time Training | Right-Time Training |
|---|---|
| Delivered months before use | Delivered close to application |
| One-off event | Reinforced over time |
| Completion-focused | Competence-focused |
| Certificate equals “trained” | Understanding is demonstrated |
| Responsibility placed on individuals | Responsibility shared by systems |
From a duty of care and risk perspective, assuming competence because training once occurred (rather than because it has been practised and reviewed) leaves people and organisations exposed.
Training, Psychological Safety, and Blame Culture
Poorly timed or inadequately reinforced training undermines psychological safety.
People may hesitate to ask for help because:
- they believe they should know.
- they’ve been told they’re already trained.
- they fear being judged or blamed.
Over time, this creates a culture where uncertainty is hidden, mistakes go unchallenged, and learning becomes performative rather than real.
Well-designed on-the-job training frameworks do the opposite. They:
- normalise learning curves.
- encourage questions and reflection.
- make progress visible.
- shift focus from blame to shared responsibility.
This isn’t about lowering standards. It’s about raising them sustainably.
Why This Matters for Neurodivergent and Neurotypical Staff
For neurodivergent individuals, poorly structured or poorly timed training can be particularly challenging. Memory, processing, anxiety, and executive functioning can all be affected when learning is abstract, rushed, or disconnected from real use.
But this isn’t a niche issue. Clear, well-timed, transparent training benefits neurotypical colleagues too. It reduces errors, improves confidence, and creates consistency across teams.
Designing ‘on-the-job training’ that works for neurodivergent people first is not “special treatment”. It’s good design. And good design lifts everyone.
How I Can Help
I have years of experience helping people formalise processes that have often grown informally from day one. I work alongside managers and teams to capture what already works, make it visible, and turn it into simple, human systems that support learning, confidence, and consistency.
As part of my practical support service, I help organisations design clear training checklists, review frameworks, and role-specific learning maps, without adding unnecessary bureaucracy. I also support teams to understand why this clarity is particularly important for neurodivergent individuals in the workplace, while recognising that well-designed, transparent processes benefit neurotypical colleagues, too.
Formalising informal processes is a neuroaffirming task. It reduces uncertainty, supports autonomy built on understanding, and creates safer, more inclusive workplaces where people know where they are right now, what’s next, and how to succeed.
Book a free 30-minute discovery call with me if you would like to discuss further.
