Teaching Fish to Climb Trees: Stop Training, Start Transforming

If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.

Often attributed to Albert Einstein, this clever metaphor can feel a little too close for comfort when applied to some of the people development programmes we still hear about.

Unfortunately, some organisations (usually due to budget constraints) still design learning as if everyone should climb the same tree at the same speed using the same method. Same slide deck. Same facilitator style. Same activities. Same success measures. The assumption is efficiency: one programme, many people. The result can be disengagement, frustration, plus little or no return on investment.

Contemporary ‘social neuroscience’ research gives all L&D professionals the chance to start designing learning environments that work with the brain, not against it.

We say let the fish swim, the birds fly, and the squirrels, koalas and leopards climb the trees!

Cognitive diversity is hard-wired in the brain.

At the heart of social neuroscience is a simple but powerful insight: human brains are wired differently, shaping how each of us processes information.

Everyone has the capacity to think analytically, structurally, socially, and conceptually. To develop effective and impactful training, we must recognise that everyone has preferences. Some people naturally reach for data and evidence first. Others look for structure, process, and certainty. Some make sense of things through people, stories, and dialogue, while others are energised by ideas, connections, and future possibilities.

When development programmes cater for a limited set of thinking preferences, people spend more energy coping with the format than engaging with the learning.

In any training scenario, from apprentice inductions to senior leaders and boards, you can be guaranteed one thing: cognitive diversity. Most training programmes, often unintentionally, favour one or two thinking styles. They either lean heavily into conceptual and social thinking—lots of discussion and big ideas—or stay in analytical and structural territory like policy briefings and compliance-led sessions. The result? At least half the room feels the session isn’t “for them.” Not because they’re resistant or unmotivated, but because their brain isn’t being invited to engage.

Disengagement is not a junior problem or a senior one—it’s a human one.

Social neuroscience reframes this challenge not as a motivation problem, but a design problem.

Designing learning environments, not just content

A social neuroscience lens shifts the focus from “What content should we deliver?” to “What conditions does the brain need in order to learn?”

When applied well, this allows organisations to:

• Tailor formats

Blend data, stories, frameworks, reflection, experimentation, and dialogue—so different brains can access the same message through different doors.

• Vary interaction deliberately

Mix solo thinking, structured discussion, peer challenge, visual mapping, and practical application. This prevents dominance by a single thinking style and keeps energy balanced across the group.

• Design psychologically safe challenge

Learning works best when there is stretch without threat. Safety enables experimentation; challenge creates commitment.

Thankfully, this approach doesn’t mean creating separate programmes for everyone. It means designing adaptive learning environments that flex within a shared experience.

Why this matters at every level of the organisation

At entry and early-career levels, social neuroscience based training builds confidence, inclusion, and skill transfer. People feel seen, capable, and able to contribute—rather than labelled as “not leadership material” because they don’t think loudly or quickly.

At management level, it improves decision quality, collaboration, and conflict resolution. Leaders begin to recognise that difference is not dysfunction—and that diverse thinking is an asset, not an obstacle.

At senior and board level, it enables better systems thinking. Complex, ambiguous challenges require multiple cognitive lenses. Training that honours this diversity strengthens strategic judgment rather than reinforcing groupthink.

In all cases, the organisation benefits from higher engagement, faster application of learning, and cultures that value contribution over conformity.

From training to transformation

Tools and frameworks that explicitly surface cognitive diversity—such as those grounded in social neuroscience—give this approach practical shape. They provide a shared language for difference, reduce unhelpful judgement, and help people adapt how they communicate, lead, and learn.

But the deeper shift is philosophical. It’s moving from asking, “How do we get people to fit our training?” to “How do we design training that unlocks how people already think?”

That’s the difference between training and transformation.

Because the goal was never to teach everyone to climb the same tree.

The goal is to help the whole organisation move forward—by letting the fish swim, the birds fly, and the squirrels, koalas and leopards climb the trees, together!