In recent consulting and training sessions with enterprises, we often hear candid feedback from business leaders and HR/Training directors:
“Every year we spend a budget on training, but the results are minimal. Employees return to work doing exactly the same as before, with no real improvement in productivity.”
This is not an isolated case. Many Vietnamese businesses are still trapped in a mindset of “training for formality” – organizing classes just to complete a plan or beautify a report, but with little to no connection between the training course and actual work performance.
Why “training for formality” wastes resources?
When training fails to deliver results, it not only wastes resources but also creates negative sentiment, making it harder for the organization to implement future programs.

Turning Every Course into “Learning to Act – Acting to Grow”
The key to breaking this cycle is to build an adaptive learning culture—where every training initiative is tied to real-world challenges, with the goal of changing behaviors and enhancing performance.
A Real Example from a Vietnamese Enterprise
A retail company in Hanoi once implemented a customer service training program. Previously, they held purely theoretical classes, and employees quickly forgot what they had learned. Later, the company shifted its approach:
This is a clear demonstration of the power of practical training: linking theory with action, and connecting the classroom to real business outcomes.
Conclusion
An adaptive learning culture and practical training not only save costs for businesses but, more importantly, turn training into a lever for growth.
When every employee sees learning as a way to perform their job better, and sees better performance as an opportunity to grow, the organization gains a workforce that is both highly skilled and resilient—ready to accompany the business through every stage of development.
Remember: “Training is not a cost—if it is designed to drive change, foster growth, and ensure sustainable development.”
Wishing you success,
Lead-UP Academy | Learn to Act – Act to Lead



Across many organizations, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises in Vietnam, learning and development initiatives are implemented on a regular basis. Annual training plans are established, budgets are allocated, and participation rates are generally high. Classroom engagement is often positive, and post-training evaluations frequently reflect high levels of satisfaction.
In the context of 2026, Vietnamese enterprises are simultaneously facing several critical challenges: increasing pressure to optimize costs and improve productivity; workforce volatility, particularly within operational teams and middle management; and a widening gap between strategic intent and execution capability. Through its R&D activities and practical implementations across multiple industries—including banking, telecommunications, services, hospitality, real estate, and manufacturing—Lead-UP Academy presents in this article a clear and consistent message:
In recent times, as Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been increasingly discussed in executive meetings, a recurring question has emerged: “Will AI make L&D redundant?” In some organizations, this question is taken even further: “Is it still necessary to invest in training when AI can already provide answers to almost everything?”
In modern human resource management, the 9 Box Grid (Performance – Potential) model is commonly used to classify employees. For Gen Z, this is an important tool that helps organizations identify who needs additional professional training, who requires coaching to improve performance, and who should be mentored to develop leadership potential. This context shows that coaching and mentoring are not merely management techniques but strategic approaches to building a sustainable succession pipeline.
During a working session with a large manufacturing company in Southern Vietnam, I heard a troubling story: the plant director suddenly resigned to join a competitor. The problem was not about hiring a replacement, but about the fact that the company had no one ready to step in immediately. More than 300 workers were left waiting for direction, production plans stalled, and customers complained about delayed orders.