Picture a sales manager opening the training dashboard on a Monday. The same English module is half finished for the third week in a row. She doesn't chase it, because nobody above her has asked about it.
That is how English training programmes stall. Nothing about it looks like a problem until an employee cannot perform in English when it counts.
Should English training be mandatory for employees?
Yes, if English is part of the job: a programme labelled optional gets treated as optional, and daily work wins.
The common assumption is that mandatory training feels heavy-handed, so leaders offer it as a benefit and hope people opt in. Most people do intend to. But a programme described as voluntary, or as a "development perk", competes with the actual job every day, and the actual job wins. A workshop gets "saved for later." A module waits another week. A manager stops checking completion because no one above them is asking.
The curriculum is rarely the cause. The label is.
What does optional English training cost a business?
Poor workplace communication costs businesses an estimated $2 trillion a year (Axios HQ, 2023). English training is meant to reduce part of that cost. When it sits in the "nice to have" category, it is also the first thing to lose time to other work.
The market is already treating this as a performance issue. In Asia, 42% of businesses say poor communication limits their ability to expand internationally (ELSA IDC InfoBrief, 2025). A limit on international expansion is a business problem. It belongs in the same conversation as revenue targets and hiring plans, and a perk is not managed that way.
Why does voluntary English training fail even when the content is good?
The usual fix is better content: a bigger library, more course choice, a nicer app. None of that changes what happens on a Monday morning, when an employee decides between a training session and a client deadline. If the programme is optional, the deadline wins.
Leaders worry that a requirement will cause resentment. That worry is reasonable, so ask a different question: what does an employee conclude about a programme their own manager never mentions? They conclude it does not matter. A requirement tied to how well they do their job at least tells them it does.
The change is in what leadership says the programme is for. It is not in the curriculum.
Instead of: "We're giving you a tool to learn English."
Say: "Communicating clearly under pressure is part of how this team performs. This is a requirement, not an extra."
What does a performance requirement look like in practice?
A perk-style programme hands each person generic lessons and hopes something sticks. A performance requirement puts people inside the conversations they will actually have: a contract negotiation with a difficult buyer, a technical explanation to a frustrated client, a presentation to a board that will not wait through hesitation.
You cannot see this difference in a syllabus. You see it in whether the practice matches the job. A sales representative needs to rehearse holding their position in a negotiation. A support agent needs to rehearse staying clear with an upset caller. The underlying skill is the same, which is communicating under pressure, but the stakes differ, so the practice differs.
How do you measure English training as a business function?
A perk gets tracked by hours watched. That number shows that someone logged in. It does not show that anything changed.
A performance requirement gets tracked by whether communication improved under pressure: clearer explanations, steadier delivery, fewer good ideas lost because of how they were said. One number measures attendance. The other measures whether the team can do its work, and only the second one is useful to an executive team.
What does the data suggest about mandatory English training?
The IDC InfoBrief reports that 86% of surveyed companies saw increased revenue after adopting AI-powered English solutions. These are self-reported survey responses. They show what companies say happened, and they do not prove the training caused the increase. Even so, it is the type of business result that finance teams already track, and it is a stronger case for funding than confidence or engagement.
One enterprise customer reported a 20% improvement in sales team communication readiness within a single quarter after reframing its programme as mandatory. The curriculum stayed the same and the framing changed. This is one customer's result, and it is not a promise that other organisations will see the same number.
The framing also affects time. Built into fifteen minutes of daily practice, that shift alone routinely gives teams back three hours per employee, per week — time otherwise lost to re-explaining, re-checking, and redoing what didn't land the first time.
What can HR and L&D leaders do this quarter?
Repositioning a programme does not need a bigger budget. It needs consistency.
Write one sentence that ties the programme to the role.
"Clear communication under pressure is part of how this team performs" works better than any description of the tool. Use the same sentence in the launch email, the manager briefing and the team meeting.
Brief managers before you brief employees.
The framing fails if it exists only in an HR deck. A manager should mention the programme the way they mention any other requirement of the job.
Treat a missed session like a missed deliverable.
A missed session should get the same follow-up as a missed deadline. If it gets a shrug, the programme has become a perk again.
Start with one team where English affects results.
Sales and customer support are the obvious places. Set the expectation, measure whether communication improves, and use that result to make the case for the next team.
Change what you report.
Replace "hours watched" with observable changes in how the team communicates under pressure.
Does the label decide the outcome?
English training becomes a performance driver when leadership says it is one, managers behave as if it is one, and the practice matches the conversations employees actually have. Positioning costs nothing. Most organisations have not yet positioned the programme to succeed.
ELSA Business builds English practice around the conversations your teams already have. Book a demo to see how it works for your organisation.
Frequently asked questions
Why does voluntary English training often stall?
A programme described as voluntary, or as a “development perk”, competes with the actual job every day, and the job wins. Workshops get saved for later, modules wait another week, and managers stop checking completion because nobody above them is asking. The curriculum is rarely the cause. The label is.
Will making English training mandatory cause resentment?
The worry is reasonable, but consider what an employee concludes about a programme their own manager never mentions: that it does not matter. A requirement tied to how well people do their job tells them it does. The change is in what leadership says the programme is for, not in the curriculum.
How is a performance requirement different from a training perk?
It puts people inside the conversations they will actually have, such as a contract negotiation with a difficult buyer, a technical explanation to a frustrated client or a presentation to a board. A sales representative rehearses holding their position in a negotiation. A support agent rehearses staying clear with an upset caller.
How should companies measure English training?
Hours watched only show that someone logged in. A better measure is whether communication improved under pressure: clearer explanations, steadier delivery and fewer good ideas lost because of how they were said.
Where should HR and L&D leaders start?
Write one sentence that ties the programme to the role, brief managers before employees, treat a missed session like a missed deliverable, and start with one team where English affects results, such as sales or customer support. Then report observable changes in how the team communicates under pressure instead of hours watched.