Some trainings stay with you long after you leave the organization. Others make you question whether the organization ever understood development in the first place.
The most influential training of my career was the University of Lending, a week-long, off-site seminar hosted at a dedicated training facility. Before attending, I did not truly understand credit, lending structures, or how credit unions sustain themselves financially. My manager saw potential in me and sent me anyway. That decision changed the direction of my career.
The program was led by Bob, an experienced and dynamic instructor who made complex material accessible without watering it down. The training was immersive. We worked through real lending scenarios, analyzed credit profiles, debated risk decisions in small groups, and role-played member conversations. We learned the differences between consumer and mortgage lending. It required active participation. Even though I had to travel and commit an entire week to it, I looked forward to being there every day. Bob’s training reflects Lecture 4 examples regarding development: he used formal education to teach industry-specific knowledge, exposed us to how other credit unions operated, and tied loan production directly to organizational sustainability in a way that motivated performance rather than just delivering information (Swift & Cieri, 2025).
The foundation of the program was service-minded lending. We were taught that lending is not just about approving or denying applications. It is about helping members build financial stability while ensuring the credit union remains financially sound. That perspective connected the technical side of lending to a broader responsibility. It gave meaning to the work.
When I returned to my branch and began applying what I had learned, everything came together, and I became a capable consumer loan officer. I attended the University of Lending a second time after I had real-world experience behind me; that second training deepened my understanding and ultimately helped elevate my skills.
I went on to become one of the top-producing consumer loan officers and the top mortgage referrer in the credit union. What began as skill development quickly expanded into something larger. The training introduced me to the mechanics of business. I began to understand how credit, interest income, risk, operations, and leadership intersect. I discovered that I loved lending. I loved understanding how money works. I loved helping people improve their financial well-being.
The experience did not end with that one seminar. I completed approximately fifty additional CUNA credit hours on my own initiative because the training sparked a genuine interest in learning more. My managers supported that effort. I sought mentorship within the underwriting department, worked closely with experienced underwriters, and eventually became an underwriter myself. Development continued well beyond the initial event.
Lecture Four’s discussion of formal, off-site education that builds industry-specific knowledge and critical thinking is reflected clearly in this experience. The Ellis et al. (2017) onboarding research also emphasizes that development succeeds when employees are supported and encouraged to take ownership of their growth. While I was not new to the organization, I was new to lending. I asked questions, pursued additional training, and leaned into mentorship opportunities. My supervisors reinforced that effort. The organization invested in me, and I invested in myself.
That single training opened the door to business as a discipline. It led me to pursue my individual mortgage license, where I scored a 92 on the national exam. It is also the reason I ultimately decided to pursue a master’s degree in business. My interest in finance, leadership, and organizational systems began at the credit union. The University of Lending was the starting point.
In contrast, my experience at a national beauty retailer as a higher-level manager showed what happens when onboarding lacks structure and follow-through.
I entered the organization enthusiastic and confident in my ability to lead. During recruitment, the company emphasized rapid advancement and internal mobility, and I was told this role would position me for elevated opportunities. That promise influenced my decision to leave mortgage lending. However, once I began, the onboarding experience did not reflect those expectations. There was little structure, minimal leadership guidance, and no sustained development, and the gap between what was promised and what was delivered became clear quickly.
Ellis et al. (2017) note that organizations may need to invest up to a year helping employees integrate in order to capitalize on the skills and excitement they bring. They also emphasize that the first three to six months are critical for role clarity, social connection, and retention.
In this case, onboarding consisted largely of online modules followed by immediate immersion into operations with limited structured coaching. Managers themselves lacked consistent guidance. There were few sustained check-ins, minimal mentoring, and little coordinated development. Questions were often redirected to internal systems rather than addressed through direct supervisory support.
Although I worked to perform at a high level, the system did not provide the scaffolding described in the research. Turnover was significant. Role clarity was inconsistent. I ultimately resigned one day after my one-year anniversary. The timeline aligns closely with the research warning that without sustained onboarding and supervisor support, early enthusiasm does not translate into retention.
Leaving that role felt like failure at the time. It also forced reflection. I realized that what I valued most was not the product category, but structured development, leadership, and business systems. That recognition pushed me to formally pursue my master’s degree in business.
Both experiences shaped my career. The University of Lending built competence, confidence, and a long-term passion for finance and business. The onboarding failure at the beauty retailer demonstrated how quickly talent can disengage when development is inconsistent and unsupported. Together, they illustrate that development and onboarding are not administrative processes. They influence performance, retention, and long-term career direction.
One organization invested intentionally and developed talent. The other relied on fragmented onboarding and ultimately lost it.
References
Ellis, A. M., Nifadkar, S. S., Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2017). Your new hires won’t succeed unless you onboard them properly. Harvard Business Review.
Hira, N. A. (2007). The making of a UPS driver. Fortune.
Cieri, C., & Swift, M. (2025). Lecture 4: Development. Human Resources Management, Oregon State University.