Exploring The Differences Between Training And L&D With Ron Taylor

It'd be awesome to hear your general experience and how you got into what you currently do with learning and development.

I’m Director of Training and Development at South University in Savannah, Georgia. I actually got started in learning and development specifically after a few years of working as an admissions representative at South University.

What was really cool was that at that time my sister was actually the head trainer of our learning and development program at South University. So I was able to almost be that little brother who was looking in the wings to see what she did.

It was great to get more insight into how she developed our admissions representatives to learn the skill sets and behaviors needed to best support our students at South University. So what I actually did was ask her and some of her leadership if I could volunteer to learn what they do from a learning and development standpoint, and I fell in love with it.

Being able to be hands-on in the growth of someone who is just jumping into an industry for the first time, or someone who is very experienced, was really powerful. It was also really cool to see South University’s take on onboarding, continuous training, and leadership development for staff.

After a few years as an admissions rep, I applied for a director of admissions role. I’ll be honest with you, my love and passion was still in learning and development, so I only stayed in that role for about six months before stepping down and starting to do training with my own team as an admissions representative.

After about a year and a half in that role, I was offered the opportunity to apply for the admissions trainer position at South University, and I was fortunate to get that role. After about two years there, I was promoted into my current role, which I’ve been in for about five years now as Director of Training and Learning & Development.

Amazing. I’d love to hear more context about the nature of your admissions training workshops. Could you give me a couple of examples of what that looks like and what specific outcomes your training supports?

What’s unique about my role is that it’s shifted over the years. When I first stepped into it, everything was done in person. I was responsible for onboarding admissions representatives and teaching them what they needed to learn, especially soft skills.

We spent a lot of time developing skills like active listening, effective questioning, and building rapport. I really loved that work. Then COVID happened.

I had only been doing in-person onboarding for about six months when overnight my director told me we needed to take everything we were doing and convert it into a fully remote onboarding experience. I was honestly shocked.

But I found ways to still break through the screen and connect with staff, and that’s largely what we do today. Our admissions onboarding now lasts about five weeks, which is much longer than most programs.

Instead of a sink-or-swim approach, we wanted to teach the role and give people hands-on experience in the role. We teach to different learning styles of auditory, visual, and hands-on so staff can work directly in our software and processes.

That’s helped tremendously with engagement. Attention spans are a real challenge today, so we’ve built our training to keep people engaged and see the value in what they’re learning.

Even after onboarding, we continue training. In 2025 alone, we did more continuous training than ever before. We’ve also introduced new software, including AI-based tools, to support learning and development.

I think that’s important because many people in L&D have done things the same way for a long time, and staff can become fatigued by the same theories and approaches. We’re really focused on student experience: teaching staff how to tailor interactions to individual students rather than running them through scripted, assembly-line conversations.

Do you see training and learning and development as two sides of the same coin, or do you see distinctions between them?

I think they’re separate. Learning and development takes time. It’s not something that happens instantly in a sit-down training.

Training is often misunderstood as something where you attend a one- or two-hour session and suddenly you’re expected to apply that skill perfectly. That’s not how it works.

Training is the function that introduces a skill set. Learning and development is the entire process of building those skills and behaviors over time. It’s continuous and ongoing.

What does good training design look like from your perspective? And what does good learning and development programme design look like?

Good training starts with knowing your audience. If the purpose of a training isn’t clearly defined upfront, you lose people before you even get through the first slide.

I always try to grab attention early and clearly explain why people are there. Organisation and flow are also critical. I’ve seen training sessions with no consistent theme, bouncing between ideas, and that loses people quickly.

You also have to consider the environment in the case of virtual, in-person, or LMS and design engagement accordingly. We use tools like Mentimeter, Microsoft Teams polls, and breakout rooms to encourage participation.

The tell–show–do model is essential. It allows people to replicate a skill before applying it with real customers.

Learning and development, on the other hand, requires long-term thinking. Training lays the foundation, but L&D is about continuous growth. That means follow-up, smart goals, and accountability.

If there’s no follow-up, training becomes a flash in the pan. A strong L&D strategy helps staff apply skills incrementally and impact KPIs over time.

Stakeholder buy-in is also crucial and that comes from staff, leadership, and the organisation as a whole. Feedback through surveys and one-on-one conversations helps us tailor long-term strategies. Without trust and buy-in, people won’t try new approaches.

Do you have best practices for protecting against learning bias or other cognitive biases in training?

I think learning bias happens when we confuse what we want to achieve with what staff actually need. If people feel you’re preaching instead of supporting them, they disengage.

You have to meet people where they are. Training shouldn’t feel like corrective action or a lecture. My baseline is always making it feel like performance support.

It’s also important to remember that trainers can learn from their audience. Bias happens when we think we’re the smartest person in the room. Every interaction is a growth opportunity.

Another issue is following trends blindly. People repeat the same soft skill narratives because it feels safe. But growth happens when leaders are willing to say things others are afraid to say and let data and experience guide them.

What are your thoughts on encouraging good psychological safety in learning and development?

Psychological safety comes from giving people a voice. Fear of being wrong keeps people quiet.

If facilitators aren’t tied to scripts and instead respond to the room, people see them as real. Solutions don’t always happen overnight. Growth takes time, practice, and different perspectives. What works for one person may not work for another, so the goal is to teach core concepts in ways that feel organic and never be robotic. 

Can you talk more about implementation mechanisms you use and what’s been surprisingly effective?

At South University, about 75% of our students are online learners, with the rest attending one of our ten brick-and-mortar campuses. That creates very different needs.

For online students, we offer non-credit orientations that help them transition back into being students. These include hands-on academic preparation and video tutorials for navigation, which reduces intimidation for students who haven’t been in school for years.

On the staff side, we teach these concepts through multiple formats and that ranges from LMS environments to hands-on situational learning and case-based scenarios.

Recently, we introduced an AI platform called Tenor. It allows staff to practice realistic conversations with AI before having them with real students. That’s been incredibly impactful for problem-solving and preparedness. By practicing ahead of time, staff feel more confident and deliver a better student experience.

If you could change one thing in the L&D environment, what would it be? And what are you most hopeful about for the future?

I think people in L&D have more to offer each other than we realise. Platforms like LinkedIn are great, but I hope we move from competition to collaboration. It’s easy to feel intimidated or overwhelmed by what others are doing and think you’re not doing enough. I wish there was more psychological safety to ask questions and learn from each other without judgment.

As for the future, I’m most hopeful about AI. There’s a lot of hesitation, but AI shouldn’t be seen as a replacement when it can be a tool to make us better and more efficient. AI can provide foundations for slide decks, meeting notes, and follow-ups in hours instead of days. Tools like Tenner, Gamma, and Firefly open up possibilities we didn’t have before.

AI is still in its infancy. If L&D professionals learn how to use it thoughtfully, it can drive innovation and create better outcomes for staff long term.