And why it has less to do with intent, and more to do with how training actually works.
In most Canadian P&C brokerages, training is not a controversial topic.
Leaders agree it matters. Managers acknowledge the need for it. Teams feel the impact when it is missing. Whether it is onboarding new hires, rolling out updates, or reinforcing how things should be done, training is rarely dismissed as unimportant.
And yet, in practice, it often gets delayed.
Not abandoned — just pushed slightly further down the list.
Until the next quarter. Until hiring stabilizes. Until there is more time. Until the current workload eases.
But that “later” rarely arrives in the way it was intended.
The pattern most brokerages recognize
If you look across brokerages, a familiar pattern emerges.
Training is discussed when:
- a new cohort of hires joins
- a process changes
- a compliance update needs to be communicated
- a performance gap becomes visible
There is alignment in the moment. There is agreement that something needs to be built, shared, or reinforced.
Then operations take over.
Client work continues. Renewals come up. Quotes need to be turned around. Service backlogs need attention. Managers step into immediate issues. Senior brokers get pulled into production.
Training does not disappear.
It simply loses the time and space required to be done properly.
So it moves.
From “now” to “soon.” From “soon” to “later.” From “later” to “we’ll revisit this when things settle.”
Why good intentions are not enough
It is easy to interpret this as a prioritization problem.
But in most cases, that is not the real issue.
Brokerages are not ignoring training because they do not value it. They are responding to a system where training is:
- time-intensive to build
- dependent on specific people
- difficult to coordinate across teams
- hard to measure in terms of impact
When something requires this much effort to get right, it naturally competes poorly against work that is:
- immediate
- measurable
- directly tied to revenue or client outcomes
So even when training is important, it becomes easier to defer.
Not because it should be.
But because of how it currently fits into the operating model.
The weight of building training
One of the biggest reasons training gets pushed back is the effort required to create it.
Turning knowledge into structured training is rarely a quick task.
It often involves:
- gathering material from different sources
- reviewing and understanding it
- organizing it into a clear structure
- preparing it for delivery
- coordinating who will deliver it and when
In many brokerages, this is not a streamlined process. It is something that has to be assembled each time.
Which means every new training need feels like a project.
And projects get delayed when the business is busy.
The dependency problem
Training also tends to depend on a small group of people.
Experienced brokers. Trainers. Managers. Subject-matter experts.
These are often the same people who are already carrying significant operational responsibilities.
So training competes directly with:
- client-facing work
- revenue-generating activity
- team supervision
- issue resolution
Even when these individuals are willing to contribute, their availability is limited.
Which slows down the process.
And when the process slows down, the urgency fades.
The coordination challenge
Training is rarely just about creating content. It is also about delivering it.
That means coordinating:
- schedules across teams or branches
- availability of trainers
- participation of learners
- follow-up after sessions
In a distributed brokerage environment, this coordination can become complex quickly.
And when coordination becomes difficult, training becomes easier to postpone.
The visibility gap
There is another, more subtle reason training gets deprioritized.
It is often difficult to see its immediate impact.
Revenue can be tracked weekly. Production can be measured directly. Service levels can be observed in real time.
Training, on the other hand, tends to show its impact over time.
And when outcomes are delayed, they are harder to connect directly to the effort that created them.
So training can feel like:
- important, but not urgent
- valuable, but not immediately measurable
Which again makes it easier to push aside.
How this connects to training drag
In the previous article, we explored the idea of training drag — the hidden cost that accumulates when training is slow, manual, and difficult to scale.
This “back burner” pattern is one of the reasons that drag continues to exist.
When training is repeatedly delayed:
- new hires take longer to reach full productivity
- experienced staff continue to handle repeat questions
- inconsistencies persist across teams
- updates take longer to become standard practice
Each delay adds a small amount of friction.
And over time, that friction compounds into meaningful operational cost.
The system, not the intent
At a surface level, it can look like training is being deprioritized.
But at a deeper level, what is really happening is that the system makes training hard to execute efficiently.
When training is:
- heavy to build
- dependent on a few people
- difficult to coordinate
- hard to measure
it will naturally struggle to stay at the top of the priority list.
Even in organizations that genuinely care about it.
What changes when training becomes easier to execute
When the effort required to build and deliver training is reduced, something important shifts.
Training no longer feels like a project that needs to be scheduled and defended.
It becomes part of how the business operates.
Knowledge can be turned into structured learning more quickly.
Teams can access consistent guidance without waiting for sessions.
Updates can be distributed without heavy coordination.
Leaders can see where readiness stands without relying on assumptions.
And because the friction is lower, training no longer competes as heavily with other priorities.
It becomes easier to do — which means it actually gets done.
A better way to frame the problem
Instead of asking:
“Why aren’t we prioritizing training enough?”
A more useful question might be:
“What about our current training model makes it so easy to delay?”
Because once that is clear, the solution is no longer about pushing people harder.
It is about reducing the friction built into the system.
Closing
Training does not end up on the back burner because brokerages do not care.
It ends up there because the current model makes it difficult to keep training moving at the speed the business requires.
And when training is repeatedly delayed, the cost is not just missed opportunity.
It is accumulated friction — in slower ramp-up, repeated interruptions, delayed updates, and inconsistent execution.
That is where training drag begins to build.
Quietly.
Over time.
If you are curious how much of that drag may already be sitting inside your current model, you can estimate it here:
Run the Training Drag Diagnostic and see what your current training model may already be costing your brokerage.
Author bio: Anil Pradhan is a Halifax-based P&C broker turned training and operations leader, and co-founder of OurBuddy.ai. He works with Canadian brokerages on building internal “Brokerage University” systems to improve role readiness, consistency, and knowledge transfer across teams and locations.
