The Fun Trap: When Enjoyment Becomes the Enemy of Effectiveness
Does workplace training need to be fun? The answer should be straightforward, but somehow we’ve managed to complicate it to the point where we’re spending enormous amounts of time, money, and creative energy building elaborate experiences that people thoroughly enjoy whilst achieving precisely nothing in terms of performance improvement.
I spent four hours earlier this week reading a research paper on noise levels in workplace learning environments, cross-referencing its claims against other studies, taking notes on methodology, questioning assumptions, and working out which findings I could apply to my own practice. Was it fun? Absolutely not. Did I learn a considerable amount that will change how I approach my work? Yes.
The Subjective Nature of Fun
When we set “fun” as an objective for workplace training, we’re building our entire intervention on shifting sand. What I find fun, you might find tedious; what delights one person leaves another cold or, worse, actively uncomfortable. Research examining fun features in workplace training reveals a problem with using enjoyment as a design principle: trainees may consider fun elements “artificial, contrived, juvenile, and a distraction from the focal learning experience” (Tews, Michel and Noe, 2017).
When we dedicate time and budget to making training fun, we’re betting on a subjective experience that varies wildly between individuals based on their personalities, preferences, cultural backgrounds, and current circumstances. Some people genuinely enjoy gamified experiences with leaderboards and points; others find them patronising and would prefer to spend that same time doing their actual job.
We’ve convinced ourselves that because some people enjoy certain types of training experiences, everyone must enjoy them, or worse, that we can engineer universal enjoyment if we just try hard enough. But this assumption collapses under the weight of individual difference. The research literature confirms that this isn't totally black-and-white, though: “our understanding of how fun training design influences learning outcomes is limited” (Tews, Michel and Noe, 2017).
The Expensive Pursuit of Entertainment
The practical consequences of prioritising fun manifest in training budgets across organisations. We commission elaborate digital experiences, invest in sophisticated gamification platforms, build immersive VR scenarios, and develop complex simulations that look impressive in presentations to senior leadership. People complete these experiences, they report enjoying them, the feedback forms come back positive, and we congratulate ourselves on creating engaging training.
Then nothing changes in the workplace.
The problem isn’t that these experiences are enjoyable; the problem is that enjoyment has become the primary design criterion rather than a potential side effect of well-designed training that addresses performance barriers. When fun drives our design decisions, we optimise for entertainment value rather than the transfer of knowledge to workplace contexts. We add unnecessary complexity that increases cognitive load without improving outcomes; we include features that distract from rather than support the core learning objectives; we create experiences that people remember fondly, but that fail to change behaviour in any meaningful way.
Cognitive load theory provides a useful lens for understanding this failure. When we add fun features to training, we often increase what researchers call extraneous cognitive load, which refers to mental effort imposed by the way information is presented rather than by the information itself (Sewell et al., 2019). Poorly designed training materials with unnecessary complexities can substantially hinder learning, yet we continue adding game mechanics, animated characters, sound effects, and elaborate storylines because we believe they make the experience more engaging.
The Confusion Between Fun, Engagement, and Interaction
Part of the problem stems from conflating distinct concepts. Fun, engagement, and interaction are not synonymous, though we often treat them as if they were. You can have highly interactive training that participants don’t find particularly fun; you can have engaging content that involves minimal interaction; you can have fun experiences that create no lasting engagement with the material.
When Schmidt et al. (2020) examined what makes workplace learning desirable, they found that intrinsic motivation, the desire to engage because something feels worthwhile, consistently outperforms extrinsic motivators like badges and points. Yet we continue investing in surface-level fun features rather than addressing the deeper question of whether our training solves problems that people care about solving.
The most effective workplace training often involves considerable cognitive effort. It requires sustained attention, active problem-solving, integration of new information with existing knowledge, and practice applying concepts in progressively complex contexts. None of this is particularly fun in the way that playing a video game or watching an entertaining video might be fun. But it is effective, provided we design it well and connect it clearly to workplace performance challenges that matter.
What This Means for L&D Practice
The research suggests a more nuanced position than either “training must be fun” or “fun is irrelevant”. Fun features may have value when they support learning objectives rather than substituting for them. The critical question isn’t whether training is enjoyable; it’s whether it facilitates the acquisition of knowledge and skills that transfer to improved workplace performance.
This means starting with performance analysis rather than experience design.
What specific workplace behaviours need to change?
What barriers prevent those behaviours currently?
What knowledge, skills, or environmental factors would enable different performance?
Only after answering these questions can we sensibly consider whether fun features might support or hinder our objectives.
In most cases, we’d be better served focusing on clarity, relevance, and appropriate challenge. Research on cognitive load management in workplace settings consistently demonstrates that learning effectiveness improves when we reduce unnecessary complexity, provide clear explanations, connect new information to existing knowledge, and allow appropriate time for practice (Young et al., 2014). None of this requires elaborate game mechanics or entertaining narratives; it requires thoughtful instructional design that respects how people actually learn.
Note: To be clear, I have absolutely no problem with games in learning or the use of entertaining narratives. In fact, they can be really useful. However, we should use them when they meet this category of really useful, by which I mean effective. Not because we want to, which is so often the problem.
When time at work devoted to training means less time for completing pressing job responsibilities, some learners prefer substantive, efficient learning experiences rather than fun ones (Tews, Michel and Noe, 2017). They want to acquire the capabilities they need and return to their work, not spend additional time being entertained. This preference deserves our respect.
Rethinking Our Priorities
The pursuit of fun in workplace training represents a category error. Our primary responsibility as L&D professionals is facilitating performance improvement, not creating enjoyable experiences. Sometimes effective learning happens to be enjoyable; sometimes it requires sustained cognitive effort that few people would describe as fun. Both can work, provided we maintain focus on workplace performance rather than participant satisfaction.
This doesn’t mean deliberately making training unpleasant or ignoring whether people find experiences valuable. It means recognising that value and enjoyment are distinct concepts, and that we serve organisations better by optimising for the former rather than assuming the latter will deliver it.
The next time someone suggests we need to make training more fun, perhaps we should ask a different question entirely: Does this training need to exist? If yes, what specific performance problem does it solve? And if we’re clear on that, what’s the most effective way to address it, regardless of whether anyone finds the solution particularly entertaining?
Sometimes the answer will involve elements people enjoy. Often it will simply involve clear explanation, relevant practice, and removal of unnecessary barriers to applying new knowledge. Both can work, but only one starts from the right premise.
References
Schmidt, R. A., Lee, T. D., Winstein, C., Wulf, G. and Zelaznik, H. N. (2020) ‘Intrinsic motivation in motor skill learning’, Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis (6th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 355-392.
Sewell, J. L., Maggio, L. A., ten Cate, O., van Gog, T., Young, J. Q. and O’Sullivan, P. S. (2019) ‘Cognitive load theory for training health professionals in the workplace: a BEME review of studies among diverse professions: BEME Guide No. 53’, Medical Teacher, 41(3), pp. 256-270.
Tews, M. J., Michel, J. W. and Noe, R. A. (2017) ‘Does training have to be fun? A review and conceptual model of the role of fun in workplace training’, Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), pp. 649-663.
Young, J. Q., Van Merrienboer, J., Durning, S. and Ten Cate, O. (2014) ‘Cognitive load theory: implications for medical education: AMEE Guide No. 86’, Medical Teacher, 36(5), pp. 371-384.
When I get a client asking me to make an e-learning course fun, I always ask them to define what they mean by "fun". It's insightful how hard they find that question to answer!