Is That “Hard Work” Really Delivering Results?
📌 Scenario: The Moment Your Proposal Was Labeled “Cutting corners”
You are an Instructional Designer (ID). Your company conducts a three-day new employee training program upon hiring.
You believe this training could be done in one day. To improve this inefficient program, you propose a plan to upper management based on instructional design principles: to streamline the three-day training into a one-day webinar and e-learning program.”
However, the response you received was harsh, rooted in “emotion” and “culture” rather than your expertise:
“If it’s online, people might slack off and just breeze through it.”
“Training is only meaningful when it involves human interaction.”
“It used to take three days, and now you want to cram it into just one? That shows a total disregard for the effort and time put in by the field staff.”
Why couldn’t this seemingly rational proposal—replacing a “three-day in-person training” with a “one-day online training”—gain approval?
This scenario reflects the fundamental clash between the unique culture in Japanese corporate training where “the longer training, the more dedicated effort” and the “shortest path to results” instructional designers aim for.
Therefore, in this article, I will discuss concrete strategies to advance efficiency using ID as a “strategic outcome” while avoiding this cultural friction.
Why Does ID’s “Efficiency” Cause Conflict?
Japan’s Unique “Hard Work” Culture and “Time Worship”
Many Japanese companies harbour a “time worship” mentality where the process itself is valued as ‘effort’ or “enthusiasm.” Because many organizations lack strong ways to measure post-training behaviour or business impact, “time spent” becomes a convenient—but vague—proxy for effort.
Furthermore, a “surveillance culture”—such as strict monitoring of e-learning access logs or enforcing camera use during online training—hinders ID implementation. Learners focus more on “passing surveillance” than on “learning,” neglecting substantive learning.
The Definition of “Efficiency” Sought by ID
“Efficiency” in ID does not equate to cutting corners or shortening training time.
ID is a process typically based on the ADDIE model’s Analyze phase. It first clarifies the “gap between performance expectations and current reality,” then designs only the elements truly necessary to bridge that gap.
Our conclusion as ID professionals is clear: Time Spent ≠ Hard Work.
The goal of ID is to achieve maximum results in the shortest time possible. Our concept of “efficiency” means “optimizing the learning experience” so that learners can deliver results in the field as quickly as possible.
Transforming “Cutting Corners” into “Strategic Outcomes”
So, how can we get ID implementation viewed not as “Cutting Corners” but as a “strategic contribution”?
For example, the following strategies can be employed:
Strategy 1: Convert Effort into “Behavioural Change” (Kirkpatrick Level 3)
Shift the evaluation axis from the effort of “participating” to the outcome of “whether actions changed on the job after training.”
Based on Kirkpatrick Level 3 (Behavioural Change), measure concrete changes in behaviour after a set period post-training through supervisor evaluations or peer reviews. This enables evaluation based on the solid instructional design principles of “action,” not just “time.”
Strategy 2: Communicate saved time as “strategic investment”
Time and cost saved through efficiency improvements should be framed not as “cost reductions,” but as time or resources reinvested in more critical learning or strategic initiatives.
For example, cost savings can be communicated as:
“The saved budget was reinvested in developing and implementing additional training to address other priority issues.”
Similarly, time savings can be framed as:
“One day was dedicated to comprehensive new hire training, while the remaining two days were allocated to department-specific or role-based training.”
Sample Communication:
“By optimizing the three-day in-person training into a one-day program, we were able to reallocate the freed-up XX hours to on-the-job application (OJA). This accelerated the development of job-ready employees by XX%.”
This framing helps upper management understand that the initiative is not about “cutting corners” but about strategic resource optimization—using limited time and budget in ways that create greater organizational impact.
Strategy 3: Shift Evaluation Focus from Monitoring to “Self-Management”
To overcome the barrier of a monitoring culture, stop tracking metrics like “time spent at the desk” and shift evaluation to outcomes directly linked to results, such as “task completion rates” or “on-the-job practice reports” after learning.
By designing feedback that encourages self-regulated learning, we can reduce monitoring costs while fostering self-directed learners.
To put it bluntly, monitoring itself is not a metric for success. No matter how much time is spent or how hard one works at their desk, if results aren’t achieved, monitoring becomes a futile effort.
If the goal becomes “just getting through the training safely” because one feels “monitored,” those three days become “just three days.”
Summary
This article examined why the culture deeply rooted in Japanese companies—where “training time equals effort”—often clashes with “efficiency” in instructional design (ID).
Efficiency in ID does not mean cutting corners; it means designing the learning experience so learners can achieve results in the shortest possible time.
In your organization, is the value of training evaluated by “how much time was spent”?
Or is it evaluated by “what behavioural changes occurred”?
【For Corporate Training & ID Solutions, connect with us below.↓↓↓】
→ [Contact Us]
AP Learning 
Leave a comment