The biggest mistakes companies make when organizing language training.

Language training fully funded or co-funded by a company is one of the more popular employee benefits. If a company provides language training as part of its benefits package, expectations toward the service provider, employees, and the company itself usually differ from those situations where the goal is the development of specific employee competencies.

When an organization needs to achieve specific results from training – for example, to better serve clients or win new contracts – ensuring high-quality training becomes a challenge. Employees with insufficient language skills may negatively affect the brand image and discourage business partners, not only because of poor language proficiency, but also due to a lack of understanding of cultural differences or intercultural communication principles. That is why it is so important to skillfully choose a language service provider (we wrote about key questions worth asking here), but also to efficiently organize and prepare the entire process.

Although the service provider is usually responsible for preparing and organizing language training, the commissioning company also plays a very important role – without it, training has little chance of success. That is why we have prepared this post, in which we honestly describe the mistakes we have encountered over the years while organizing training for various entities, from small and medium-sized companies to international corporations.

We hope that the list below will help those responsible for organizing language training in companies approach the topic more consciously and avoid similar mistakes, resulting in better organized and more effective training.

1. LACK OF A THOROUGH TRAINING NEEDS ANALYSIS

One of the most fundamental mistakes is failing to conduct a thorough training needs analysis. It is not enough to know that employees generally need language skills; a company aiming for measurable results must carefully examine these needs. This involves not only identifying the number of participants, but precisely determining which skills employees need, their current level, and their language gaps.

A variation of this mistake occurs when HR or management assumes what type of course employees need instead of conducting proper interviews with them. Of course, some mismatches only become apparent during training and cannot be predicted. However, a solid initial needs analysis significantly reduces the risk of wasting money on poorly designed training.

For example, we once encountered a situation where a company organized one-on-one lessons, yet employees still felt afraid to speak in front of larger groups – which turned out to be the key skill they actually needed.

Best practices:

The provider or the company should use a needs analysis form that each participant completes. Based on this information, a truly customized course can be designed. In our school, every new participant fills out an online needs analysis form, which is later verified during the language assessment and further refined by the teacher during the first lessons and throughout the course (as language needs may change over time, for example due to new responsibilities or projects).

2. INSUFFICIENT RESEARCH INTO LANGUAGE SCHOOL OFFERS

From our experience, companies often treat price as the main selection criterion or rely on a very limited set of criteria. To choose the best provider, we must first clearly define our needs (see point 1) and then thoroughly analyze the market and what each provider actually offers. While corporate language courses may seem similar, different providers may offer unique advantages that better meet a company’s needs. It is therefore essential to speak directly with representatives of each potential provider and discuss how they can address specific requirements.

A common oversight is basing decisions solely on first impressions from a website or offer, without speaking to the school’s methodologist or account manager. Such conversations often reveal valuable information about training organization, methodology, tools, and supporting techniques. Choosing solely based on the lowest price may fit the budget in the short term but can result in long-term losses if the provider fails to deliver the expected quality.

Best practices:

In addition to defining employees’ language needs, the company should clarify expectations regarding the entire training process. What matters most? Which methods will be most effective? Does the provider tailor courses to corporate needs or focus mainly on general learners? These and many other questions should be asked before making a decision. A helpful checklist is available here. It is also good practice to compare value and expected results with price, and to take advantage of trial lessons whenever possible.

3. NO CLEAR TRAINING GOALS AND NO ACCOUNTABILITY

While some companies treat language training purely as a benefit without accountability, if real results are expected, clear training goals must be established and communicated to both employees and the provider. Transparent communication is crucial.

A typical mistake is either having no goals at all or setting vague and imprecise goals. To measure progress, we must know the starting level (through reliable language assessment) and define what “progress” means and how it will be measured. A common method is setting a target CEFR level within a defined timeframe. Progress can be monitored through tests, audits, teacher feedback, and observable improvements in workplace performance.

To hold participants accountable, employees must be clearly informed about expectations and consequences of non-compliance. Intermediate indicators such as attendance, homework completion, and test results are also helpful. Well-prepared course regulations are essential when measurable outcomes matter.

Best practices:

Clearly define the language goal, communicate it to both the provider and employees, determine the timeframe, and establish measurable indicators. Decide how progress will be evaluated (tests, feedback, audits), and plan corrective actions if results fall short.

4. LACK OF PROGRESS MONITORING

Closely related to the above point is monitoring progress. Regular verification of learning outcomes and course quality is essential. Schools can assist by collecting feedback and supervising teachers, but the company must also track employee results. Well-organized training includes regular progress reports, and good schools provide access to platforms where attendance, completed lessons, and test results can be monitored.

Best practices:

Establish how and how often progress will be monitored. Ask whether the provider offers access to a dedicated panel or regular reports. Reliable schools also monitor teaching quality internally.

5. RIGID AND INFLEXIBLE APPROACH TO TRAINING ORGANIZATION

Another significant mistake is rigidity in organizing classes. For example, requiring all lessons to take place before or after working hours may seem reasonable, but it has consequences. First, it limits access to the best teachers, as no school has unlimited staff available only during peak hours. Second, some employees may be unable to attend due to personal commitments.

Even when training is scheduled during working hours, challenges arise if management does not fully support participants by protecting training time from meetings or other duties.

Group size is another issue. Companies often prefer larger groups (8–10 people) for budget reasons, but this negatively affects learning quality and speaking opportunities compared to smaller groups (e.g., 4 participants).

Best practices:

When organizing language training, companies must understand how decisions regarding group size, schedule, and frequency affect outcomes. Open discussions with providers help find balanced solutions that meet both organizational needs and educational standards.

As we can see, organizing effective language training requires consideration of many factors. Companies should avoid mistakes such as unclear goals, poor provider selection, oversized groups, lack of monitoring, and others. With the right approach and proper alignment to employee needs, organizations can unlock the full educational potential and achieve genuine language development in the workplace. After all, that is the ultimate goal for both companies and language schools, isn’t it?