In many organisations, training activity increases year after year, yet the structure guiding that investment often remains informal or fragmented. Over time this creates a pattern that becomes increasingly difficult to manage as organisations become more complex. Catalyst by LATERAL was developed after seeing this same pattern appear repeatedly and recognising the need for a clearer structure behind organisational learning.

Training Starts Informally, Until Complexity Changes the Equation

In the early stages of a company, training is usually informal and closely tied to the day‑to‑day work of the team.

Someone experienced shows a new hire how things work. A manager shares a document that explains a process. A founder might walk through a decision in a meeting and talk through the reasoning behind it. Most of the time, knowledge moves through conversation, observation, and simply being close to the work.

At that stage, this works well. The organisation is small, communication is direct, and people are close enough to the work to understand how things operate. When questions come up, they are usually solved with a quick conversation rather than a formal programme.

But this dynamic rarely stays the same for long.

As organisations expand and operations become more complex, the nature of training begins to shift.

More people join the company. Roles become more specialised. Compliance requirements begin to appear. Leadership responsibilities grow as new managers step into their roles. Customers expect more consistency in how work is delivered.

Training doesn’t disappear as the organisation becomes larger and more complex. If anything, it multiplies.

New onboarding sessions appear to support hiring. Managers begin requesting courses for their teams. External providers are brought in to solve specific needs. Compliance modules are added. Leadership development programmes begin to take shape.

In other words, learning activity increases steadily as the organisation responds to these pressures.

What usually doesn’t increase at the same pace is the structure guiding that activity.

Training begins to happen in several places at once. Different teams introduce their own initiatives. New programmes are added whenever a need appears.

The organisation is clearly investing in learning, and in many cases the investment is significant.

But the structure behind that investment often remains informal and loosely connected.

And over time, that is where the real challenge begins to appear.

The Realisation: The Problem Was Never Training

As we spent time with more organisations where training had expanded, a pattern started to repeat itself.

The issue was rarely a lack of training.

In most organisations we encountered, training activity was already substantial. Companies were investing in onboarding programmes. Managers were requesting courses for their teams. Compliance training was in place. External providers were often delivering specialised programmes.

The effort was visible. What was harder to see was the structure behind that effort.

Gradually, a gap begins to appear between the amount of training taking place and the system responsible for guiding it.

We refer to this as the structural gap.

The structural gap appears when training activity increases, but the system behind it does not evolve at the same pace. Once you start looking for it, the pattern becomes surprisingly easy to recognise.

There may be no clearly defined learning roadmap explaining how capabilities are meant to develop across the organisation.

Different teams introduce initiatives independently. Each programme solves a real problem, but the initiatives are not always connected.

  • Multiple programmes may run in parallel without clear sequencing or progression.
  • Reporting on training activity may exist, but it is often fragmented across systems, providers, or departments.
  • Leadership can see that training is happening, but it is not always clear what all of those efforts are collectively building.

Over time, capability development becomes harder to track in a consistent and meaningful way.

Importantly, this situation rarely appears because people are careless or indifferent.

More often, it is the result of something far more ordinary.

Training activity expands quickly as organisations add people, systems, and responsibilities, while the structure needed to coordinate that activity develops more slowly.

Understanding why that happens helps explain why the structural gap is so common.

Why Structure Often Falls Behind Training Activity

The structural gap does not usually appear because organisations neglect learning.

In many cases, the opposite is true.

At this stage, most organisations are focused on delivering for customers, stabilising operations, and supporting teams that are becoming larger and more specialised. As new challenges appear, training is introduced to address them as quickly as possible.

  • A new system requires onboarding so employees can use it effectively.
  • A compliance requirement appears and needs to be addressed.
  • Managers who have recently stepped into leadership roles need guidance on how to lead larger teams.

Each of these needs is real, and each requires a practical response.

Training decisions therefore tend to be reactive. A problem appears, and a programme is introduced to address it. Over time, these responses begin to accumulate.

Meanwhile, HR and people teams are often managing a wide range of responsibilities. Recruitment, performance management, employee relations, and internal processes all demand attention. Learning and development sits alongside many other operational priorities.

Designing a learning function with clear structure, sequencing, and oversight requires time and focused attention. And quite often, that time simply isn’t available while the organisation is moving quickly and responding to operational pressures.

So the learning system grows in fragments.

New initiatives are introduced as needs emerge, but the underlying structure connecting those initiatives develops more slowly.

This is not a sign of poor management.

It is a predictable by‑product of organisations becoming more operationally complex over time.

And when that complexity continues to increase, the effects of the structural gap start to become more visible.

What Happens When Training Expands Without Structure

When the structural gap remains in place for long enough, its effects gradually begin to surface across the organisation.

Training activity continues to increase, but clarity does not always increase with it.

Budgets grow as new programmes are introduced. External providers are added to deliver specialised training. Additional initiatives appear each year as teams respond to emerging needs.

Yet leadership often struggles to see the full picture of what this activity is producing.

They can see that investment in learning is taking place, but it is not always obvious what that investment is building across the organisation over time.

Without a clear structure, it becomes difficult to connect individual training initiatives to broader capability development.

Some teams may receive significant attention and resources, while other areas develop more slowly or remain unsupported.

Managers request programmes to solve immediate operational challenges, which is both understandable and often necessary. But without a shared roadmap that sets priorities, deciding which initiatives should come first becomes increasingly difficult.

Over time, learning activity can begin to feel uneven and difficult to coordinate.

People attend courses and complete programmes, yet leadership may still question whether organisational capability is improving consistently and measurably.

Reporting often focuses on attendance or completion statistics rather than on the development of capabilities that matter to the business.

None of this means training is failing. But it does mean the organisation is investing in learning without the level of visibility, direction, and discipline that a more mature learning function eventually requires.

At that point, the conversation usually shifts.

The question is no longer whether training is happening.

The question becomes how to bring structure to it.

What Actually Closes the Structural Gap

Closing the structural gap does not begin with introducing more training programmes.

It begins with clarity.

Before new initiatives are added, organisations need a clear understanding of the capabilities they are trying to build and where learning efforts should be focused.

That requires defined priorities that align learning investment with business needs.

It requires a roadmap that shows how capabilities are expected to develop over time rather than relying on isolated programmes.

It requires oversight so initiatives are connected and coordinated rather than operating independently.

And it requires measurable outcomes so leadership can see whether learning investment is producing practical results.

Just as important is a structured rhythm of review. Training activity should not simply accumulate over time. It needs to be reviewed regularly, adjusted when necessary, and aligned with changing organisational priorities.

In other words, the solution is not more activity. The solution is better structure around the activity that already exists.

Catalyst was designed around this principle.

Its purpose is to help organisations where training has expanded introduce the structure, direction, and oversight needed to close the structural gap and guide learning investment with greater clarity.

And once you start looking at learning through this structural lens, the final step becomes easier to recognise.

What’s next? Recognising the Structural Gap

In many organisations, training grows steadily as the company expands and new operational needs appear.

New programmes are introduced. More people participate in learning activities. Investment in development increases year by year.

But the structure guiding that activity does not always evolve at the same pace.

  • If training has expanded faster than the structure supporting it…
  • If leadership would like clearer visibility into what learning investment is building across the organisation…
  • If development activity feels busy but not fully aligned with organisational priorities…

Then the structural gap may already be present.

This stage is common in organisations where training activity has expanded faster than the structure supporting it.

Catalyst exists to help close that gap by introducing the structure, direction, and oversight needed to guide learning investment more deliberately.

Not by adding more activity, but by helping organisations bring clarity and discipline to the activity that already exists.