u/DaneRemote

In my experience engagement was rarely the problem when the training was hands-on and actually relevant. When I managed support teams, people did it because they could feel themselves getting better at the real job. It was the tick-box courses and completion tracking that killed it — same people, no interest.

What worked for me was keeping learning tied to the actual work: practical, hands-on, useful that week and the next, not a separate thing to get through. When it obviously helps them, you don't have to build a culture around it — they just do it. Managers included, for the same reason.

I think the main reason is a lot of training doesn't actually break down what someone got wrong or didn't understand. It's just right or wrong, send it to the manager.

Training works best when it's hands-on — a safe environment where you're doing a live example of the real job. And then, straight after, a proper breakdown of how they did, what they could have done, and something useful they can take forward. Helps massively IMO.

I did this in person for years and it worked a treat. So much so I've ended up building my own system around it, trying to do the same thing as an online product.

Honestly, if people are taught how to think and approach new things, it helps them far more than any PowerPoint, multiple choice or documentation read. Hands-on, real scenario, real advice.

I feel your pain here, and had this for years myself when managing teams.

One reframe that might help, though: everyone seems to say "fix the knowledgebase," but honestly your business has a point that it changes too fast to keep current. The trap is thinking a complete KB is the goal. It isn't - because real support is handling stuff nobody prepared you for. If training only works when the material's complete, it'll always feel broken, because it never will be.

So the shift I'd reach for: train investigation, not just knowledge - how agents reason through an unfamiliar problem. The ones who can do that don't freeze when there's a gap; they work it out. And that's where the confidence you're missing comes from - safe reps of actually doing the job (realistic problems, mistakes where it's free, before a live customer), then a breakdown of what they did, not just "you passed, or you failed". Something that actually shows them what they missed.

Nothing beats hands on training, but there has to be meaning for it and something to take away from it.

I got obsessed enough with this to build a tool around it, but the principle stands on its own: stop trying to complete the map, start teaching people to navigate without one.

I found the biggest gains came from analysing the decisions afterwards rather than marking the scenario itself. So more of a breakdown.

We looked at what they searched for, what clues they missed, what they assumed, and what extra step would have turned a good answer into a great customer interaction. (customer support training)

That reflection seemed to stick far more than simply telling someone the correct answer, because it teaches them the thinking behind it.

I have noticed that. used tools like Instantly, and Apollo but not getting the leads I want tbh. I am happy to pay, but want to find the right one first before committing. Then I can also put the hours in to try and outreach.

Yeah, I was kind of thinking the same. Use AI to find the potential leads and then deal with the outreach myself. I'm definitely not shy about doing the work, it was more the help of finding who to target rather than endless searching on LinkedIn.

Here's another referral code just added today -https://pro.klingai.com/h5-app/invitation?code=7B7HDQ96TZPS