Implementing an Employee-generated Learning approach doesn’t come without its challenges and concerns. While the benefits are clear, organizations may have valid concerns about handing over the training content production process to SMEs. Additionally, there are clear instances where an EGL approach simply isn’t the best fit (think compliance training, for instance). Below, we’ll take a look at some of the main challenges organizations face when making the shift to an EGL mindset as well as the limitations of this methodology.
Quality of the content
The main concern around peer-to-peer learning is always the quality of the learning and with EGL that is no different. The concern over the quality of the content has two dimensions:
- Is it correct?
- What is the didactical quality of the learning material?
If we look at the first challenge, this is a valid concern, but it is no different to the quality concerns you would have if an instructional designer was the one developing the course. In both cases you actually should have this concern. Plus, when instructional designers develop training materials, they’re not able to check the content for accuracy themselves. In both cases you need a review process to allow other SMEs check the training content and provide feedback.
When it comes to concerns over the didactical quality of a training developed by SMEs, there are a few things to consider. A good instructional designer will of course make a course that is more in line with didactical best practices than an SME – there is no doubt about that. But for the purposes of peer-to-peer learning, a course developed by an SME will be good enough. Trainings do not have to be elaborate and complex in order to be effective.
Research shows that SMEs trust content created by their peers more and that these courses have higher approval and finish rates than those developed by instructional designers. Employee-generated Learning also does not mean that an instructional designer cannot be involved in the creation process. They can support the author, guide them, coach them, advise them – as long as they do not take over the responsibility for development and maintenance of the content.
Additionally, there are many things you can do as an organization to address concerns over the quality of training content developed by SMEs. Coaching authors and promoting peer review are great first steps. But also make sure that it is clear to everybody who the author of the course is. This allows authors to feel a sense of ownership and a willingness to prove themselves as experts on the topic, giving overall quality a boost. (Everybody will think twice before publishing a sloppy course if their name is closely attached to it!)
Making a distinction between Employee-generated Learning and officially approved L&D trainings is also an effective strategy. You can do that by providing these courses in different environments or just by labelling them. This is a clear way to manage expectations about the training.
Lack of time for SMEs
“But our subject matter experts don’t have the time for this” – this is a concern we hear often. And, of course, at first glance it seems a bit strange to have your best people spend time on developing training materials and keeping them up to date. The thing is, very often EGL will actually save them time.
These SMEs are already the go-to people for L&D to interview when they’re developing a new training. And, as we’ve discussed, this traditional content creation process can be very time-consuming. These people are also the ones that colleagues will reach out to with questions. They will likely be involved in onboarding new employees. All these things take time and are recurring. The one-time effort to create training content on this is much faster and more effective, saving your SMEs a lot of time in the long run.
The limitations of EGL
Can you use an Employee-generated Learning approach for everything? The short answer is no.
In general, you can say that the greater the number of learners that a course targets, the more likely it is that it should be developed by your L&D department. Likewise, the lower the number of target learners, the better suited an Employee-generated Learning approach is.
The truth is, organizations typically require a lot more trainings targeted to a smaller audience. This means Employee-generated Learning ultimately helps free up L&D teams and optimize resources.

To analyze this in more detail, take a look at the table below where you’ll find the main differences between L&D-generated training and Employee-generated Learning.
The sweet spot for employee-generated content lies with smaller courses on topics that have a high rate of change. If you have to create a course for a large part of your company, with a global impact, and that is aligned with your main priorities for L&D, then a top-down L&D-generated approach is probably best. Topics that qualify for this are compliance training, security, and health and safety trainings. The speed of change with these topics is low and, as an L&D department, you need to be able to prove that everyone passed these courses with an audit.
The thing is that this content likely makes up less than 5% all of the training needs at your company. This means that for the remaining 95% training requests, an Employee-generated Learning approach is the best fit.

Finally, let’s not forget that EGL is not the best way to create learning content for the three highest levels of learning from Bloom’s Taxonomy: analyzing, evaluating, creating. You need more didactical knowledge which means an L&D professional should be responsible for this kind of content. This does not mean that SMEs will not be involved in the creation for this kind of content, but at least the responsibility for the design should be with an instructional designer.