Megan Gutierrez works in learning and development, designing learning around people’s needs and the problems organizations are trying to solve. The posts also discuss instructional design and practical uses of AI automation.
Useful for practitioner-led sessions that show instructional designers building AI automations and diagnosing learning problems first.
Best for
A workflow automation or no-code vendor wanting practitioner-led sessions and content for L&D managers.
Not for
An enterprise software brand needing verified senior L&D buyer reach, demographics, benchmarks, and published sponsorship rates.
Key takeaways
A four-phase process: diagnose, design, integrate, and evolve before choosing learning content.
An onboarding content request revealed misaligned incentives and disconnected platforms, not a content problem.
An instructional design group plans to build an AI automation live with Make.com.
Check first: Confirm evidence of project outcomes and audience demographics before committing budget.
Main ideas
Diagnose the learning problem before designing content · Measure growth in changed behavior and connection, not completion rates · Instructional designers should learn AI by building something real
Megan Gutierrez’s LinkedIn posts focus on learning and development, instructional design, and practical uses of AI.
They show a recurring emphasis on understanding what learners and organizations need before choosing a solution.
One post describes a four-phase process—diagnose, design, integrate, and evolve—and explains how a request for better onboarding content led instead to identifying misaligned incentives and disconnected platforms.
Other posts connect learning to behavior and relationships, and describe an instructional design group planning to build an AI automation live with Make.com.
These examples make their work worth following for readers interested in people-centered learning strategy and practical instructional design.
The clearest distinctive contribution in these posts is Gutierrez's insistence on diagnosing the problem before prescribing learning content or technology.
They make that point concrete with the onboarding example: the apparent need was better content, but the diagnosis surfaced incentive and platform problems that new content would not have solved.
They also translate broad values into accessible examples, from tracking school assignments with sticky notes to asking whether learning growth is better judged by changed behavior, trust, and connections than by completion rates or test scores.
The AI automation post adds a practical, participatory format: the group chooses a workflow and builds it live.
Together, these examples show a blend of diagnostic thinking, human-centered explanation, and hands-on learning activities.
Megan Gutierrez's posts return to a small set of connected positions: diagnose the real problem before building learning content, judge learning by changed behavior and connection rather than completion counts, treat AI as something instructional designers learn by building a working automation together, and hold a people-first standard in which commitment means showing up repeatedly rather than perfectly.
Read more
The recurring peer groups they convene put those views into practice. Across the four posts, the positions are consistent.
Diagnose the learning problem before designing content
Gutierrez argues that organizations usually diagnose learning problems backward: they read low engagement as a content problem, answer skill gaps with another course, and address adoption friction with more integrations.
Read more
Surface symptoms, they say, hide root causes in incentives, systems, and engagement patterns, so content built around the symptoms fails no matter how well it is made.
Their process has four named phases: Diagnose, to uncover what is really broken; Design, to address root causes rather than symptoms; Integrate, to connect learning to an employee's real working life so it sticks; and Evolve, to keep adapting because learning is living, not static.
Discovery is the step organizations skip and then regret.
A client arrived convinced it needed better onboarding content.
The diagnostic phase instead surfaced misaligned incentives between departments and a siloed platform ecosystem that made knowledge transfer nearly impossible.
Gutierrez says new content would have failed spectacularly, and argues that skipping discovery is how organizations end up with beautiful learning solutions nobody uses.
Measure growth in changed behavior and connection, not completion rates
Gutierrez asks what a year in learning and development is actually measured in.
Read more
Training hours, completion rates, and 80% test scores at the end of a module are the easy counts; changed behaviors, built trust, and connections made are offered as more meaningful measures.
The argument is that the second set is what the work is for.
Gutierrez poses the question to readers rather than offering a finished framework.
A year-end post opens with a line from Rent's "Seasons of Love," applies the question to learning work, and announces that a Connections Networking Group session on "Crafting Growth" will take up the theme. It closes by asking readers how they measure growth in their work, their team, or themselves.
Instructional designers should learn AI by building something real
Rather than state a position on AI in the abstract, Gutierrez organizes a live build: the group picks the automation, they learn how to make it, and then demonstrate it on the call.
Read more
The approach lets practitioners learn automation by watching a concrete build with a named tool and output.
Putting the topic to a vote helps match the session to attendees' interests.
The meetings are open to instructional designers, whether they are brand new to AI or already experimenting.
An Instructional Design Networking Group session was set up to build an AI automation in Make.com.
Poll options included File to Milestone Update, Weekly Progress Pulse, Content Auto-Tagger, and Learner Support Chatbot.
A longer list included SME Review to Summary, Notes to Action Items, Objectives and Outline, AI Storyboard QA, Survey Analyzer, and Timeline Assistant.
A follow-up note reported a tie, leaving the showcased build a surprise.
Commitment is showing up repeatedly, not getting it perfect
Gutierrez frames commitment as repetition under difficulty, not flawless execution, and applies the same standard to learning and development: show up when it is hard, find what works for the individual learner, make it easier, and celebrate successes.
Read more
Their stated values are "People First. Growth Always."
A Motivation Monday post describes a daughter's rough transition to middle school, from one class to seven, and the routine the family settled on: tracking assignments on sticky notes, separating past-due items from follow-ups and high-priority work, and moving notes to the top as they are completed to keep progress visible. The post names Taproot Learning Connections as the setting for this people-first approach.
Practitioner peer groups, not broadcasts, are how L&D people learn
Both community formats are framed as gatherings of peers who share wins, challenges, and ideas rather than audiences receiving a presentation.
Read more
Gutierrez convenes them, while attendees contribute topics, votes, and their own experience—the point of the format.
The Instructional Design Networking Group meets to build something together, with attendance taken by comment. The Connections Networking Group meets on the second Friday of every month to share wins, challenges, and fresh ideas in the L&D space.
This is the clearest statement of what Megan Gutierrez does and how the work is sequenced.
Read more
A newcomer who reads only one post should start here: it names the method and shows it in use.
Gutierrez argues that organizations often diagnose learning problems backward: they treat low engagement as a content problem, answer skill gaps with another course, and meet adoption friction with more integrations.
The post describes a recent engagement where a client asked for better onboarding content, but a diagnostic phase surfaced misaligned incentives between departments and a siloed platform ecosystem that made knowledge transfer nearly impossible.
Gutierrez concludes that new content would have failed.
The method has four phases: Diagnose, to uncover what is really broken across incentives, systems, skill gaps, and engagement patterns; Design, to address root causes rather than symptoms; Integrate, to connect learning to an employee's real life; and Evolve, to keep adapting.
The closing claim: skipping discovery produces well-made learning that nobody uses.
For brands planning a campaign
For briefs on learning strategy, instructional design, or onboarding and upskilling programs, this post offers a concrete, citable example of a diagnostic-led approach and a four-phase structure a brand could reference when framing a collaboration. It also sets the expectation that the first deliverable is a diagnosis, not a template.
This shows how Gutierrez thinks about value and measurement in learning work—the judgment behind any program a brand would commission.
Read more
It is a short, personal statement of priorities rather than a process description.
Written around year-end, the post opens with the line from Rent's "Seasons of Love" and asks how a year is measured.
Gutierrez then applies the question to learning and development: growth could be counted in training hours, completion rates, or the 80% test scores at the end of a module, or it could be measured in the behaviors that change, the trust built, and the connections made.
The post announces that a Connections Networking Group meeting, held on the second Friday of each month, will explore the idea of "Crafting Growth," and it ends by asking readers how they measure growth in their own work, team, or self.
The recurring sign-off is "People First!
Growth Always!"
For brands planning a campaign
Useful for briefs where a brand needs to justify a learning investment beyond completion metrics, or where the campaign focuses on behavior change and adoption rather than course delivery. It also shows the recurring monthly event format they run, which could matter for a co-hosted or sponsored session.
This shows whether Gutierrez engages with AI in practice or only in principle.
Read more
It is the best starting point for anyone assessing hands-on technology work with instructional designers.
The post promotes an Instructional Design Networking Group session on Friday, 12 December, where the group will build a real AI automation using Make.com.
Rather than choosing the topic alone, Gutierrez puts it to a vote: a LinkedIn poll with four options (File to Milestone Update, Weekly Progress Pulse, Content Auto-Tagger, Learner Support Chatbot), plus a longer list of ideas including SME Review to Summary, Notes to Action Items, Objectives and Outline, AI Storyboard QA, Survey Analyzer, and Timeline Assistant.
A follow-up note says the vote was tied and the showcased build would stay a surprise.
Gutierrez says the group will learn how to build whichever option it chooses, then see it demonstrated on the call.
The meetings are open to instructional designers, whether they are new to AI or already experimenting.
For brands planning a campaign
For campaigns involving AI in learning and development, this post shows a working format: a live, audience-chosen build using a specific tool and producing a concrete output. A brand could sponsor or provide a real workflow for a session like this; the value lies in the demonstrated build, not a general AI position statement.
This shows the values behind the work: it is the clearest window into the people-first stance that runs through the other posts, and it names the organization they work with.
Read more
Gutierrez describes a daughter's difficult transition to middle school, from one class in elementary school to seven, and the system the family settled on: tracking assignments on sticky notes, separating past-due items from follow-ups and high-priority work, and moving notes to the top as they are completed so progress is visible.
The reflection: commitment is not about perfection but about showing up repeatedly when it is hard.
The post draws a parallel to learning and development: showing up when it is hard, finding what works for learners, making it easier, and celebrating successes.
It names Taproot Learning Connections as the place where this happens and closes with the sign-off "People First.
Growth Always."
For brands planning a campaign
Relevant when a brand's brief depends on learner motivation, habit-building, or a human-centered tone, and as the source linking Gutierrez to Taproot Learning Connections. This is a values statement rather than a case study, so it supports tone and audience fit more than capability claims.
Diagnosing the learning problem before designing the content
Megan Gutierrez argues that most organizations diagnose learning problems backward: they see low engagement and assume it is a content problem, see skill gaps and build another course, or see adoption friction and add integrations.
Read more
In one engagement described in a post, a client arrived convinced it needed better onboarding content; the diagnostic phase instead surfaced misaligned incentives between departments and a siloed platform ecosystem that made knowledge transfer nearly impossible. The stated conclusion is that new content would have failed, which is why they start with discovery rather than templates.
For brands planning a campaign
A vendor selling course libraries, authoring tools, or content subscriptions would be one input in an assessment conversation, not a turnkey answer. Diagnostic and consulting offers, or platforms that address workflow and systems problems, fit more closely with this argument.
The post describes a four-phase design process: Diagnose, to uncover what is really broken (incentives, systems, skill gaps, engagement patterns); Design, to build solutions that address root causes rather than symptoms; Integrate, to connect learning to an employee's real working life so it sticks; and Evolve, to keep adapting because learning is treated as living rather than static.
Read more
The phases form a repeatable sequence, with discovery identified as the step organizations skip and then regret.
The client engagement is described only in summary form. Ask for the client's name, timeline, and measured results before using it as a case study.
For brands planning a campaign
A four-step framework is straightforward to sponsor or co-brand. Megan Gutierrez could walk an audience through the phases with one vendor's tool anchored in a single phase, or turn the diagnostic step into a downloadable worksheet that carries a brand's lead-generation offer.
Practical AI automation for instructional designers
Megan Gutierrez convenes an Instructional Design Networking Group and used a post to crowdsource what the group should build next: a real AI automation in Make.com.
Read more
The poll options were a file-to-milestone-update flow, a weekly progress pulse, a content auto-tagger, and a learner support chatbot, with a longer list including SME review summaries, notes-to-action-items, objectives-and-outline generation, storyboard QA, a survey analyzer, and a timeline assistant.
The format is to learn the build and then demonstrate it on the call.
The sessions are open to instructional designers, whether they are new to AI or already experimenting with automation.
For brands planning a campaign
This suits automation, no-code, and AI tooling vendors looking for a live build-along in front of an L&D audience. The poll-and-vote mechanic offers a ready-made engagement hook, and attendees see the tool used in the build.
Recurring peer groups and community session formats
Two recurring community formats appear across the posts.
Read more
One is the Instructional Design Networking Group, which met to build an AI automation and takes attendance by comment.
The other is a Connections Networking Group that meets on the second Friday of every month to share wins, challenges, and fresh ideas in the L&D space.
Both are framed as practitioner gatherings rather than broadcasts.
For brands planning a campaign
A brand can sponsor or supply the topic, tool, or guest for a recurring session, reaching L&D practitioners in a peer-learning setting rather than through a product demo. The monthly cadence gives a sponsor repeat visibility instead of a single appearance.
People-first values and measuring growth beyond completion rates
A recurring argument across the posts: growth in learning and development should be measured in changed behaviors, trust, and connections rather than training hours, completion rates, or end-of-module test scores.
Read more
Commitment means showing up again and again rather than executing perfectly, illustrated with a sticky-note routine used to track assignments and priorities through a middle-school transition.
The stated values line is "People First.
Growth Always."
The growth-measurement argument appears in reflective and motivational posts; Gutierrez's posts do not show a completed measurement framework or client results attached to it.
For brands planning a campaign
Brands focused on behavior change or outcomes rather than seat time can use this angle. A human-stories, values-led campaign fits better here than a metrics-only product message.
Megan Gutierrez writes about learning and development work with client organizations, which are not named.
Taproot Learning Connections appears as the practice they work within, and Make.com as the tool used in a networking-group build.
Ask whether Gutierrez owns or works for Taproot, and whether any sponsored or affiliate relationship is involved.
Taproot Learning Connections
Disclosed partnership
A Motivation Monday post about commitment closes with “that's what we do here at Taproot Learning Connections!” and the hashtags #TaprootValues, #PeopleFirst and #GrowthAlways.
Read more
The post presents Taproot as the learning and development practice Megan Gutierrez works within. Ask whether they own the business or are employed by it.
A post announcing the next meeting of the Instructional Design Networking Group says the group will build “a real AI automation using Make.com” and invites votes on which automation to build.
Read more
The post names Make.com as the tool for the session; ask whether any sponsorship or partnership is involved.
Start with Megan Gutierrez's post on diagnosing a learning problem before designing any content.
Read more
It carries the argument that runs through everything else they publish: low engagement, skill gaps, and adoption friction are usually symptoms.
A client who asked for better onboarding content actually needed to fix misaligned incentives between departments and a siloed platform ecosystem.
Follow the four-phase method they describe next—diagnose, design, integrate, evolve—as the working version of that idea.
The second thread is practical.
They convened an instructional design peer group, put a list of AI automations to a vote, and built the winner in Make.com on a live call so attendees could watch the automation rather than hear about it in the abstract.
The third thread is values-led and more reflective: measuring growth in changed behavior, trust, and connection rather than completion rates, and treating commitment as showing up repeatedly instead of perfectly.
Readers who want the community side will find it in the two recurring groups described in the posts: the instructional design networking group and the monthly Connections session.
Taylor writes practitioner-facing posts about the education and training sector that work the same way Gutierrez's do: they start from why provision succeeds or fails, then explain the operating system behind it.
Read more
Taylor's focus is learner recruitment: funded courses sit empty because providers treat recruitment as a last-minute task, respond slowly to enquiries, and go quiet on social media when they have no vacancies. That's the same move they make on learning design, where the visible symptom gets treated and the underlying mechanism gets ignored.
Taylor's subject is learner recruitment for UK further education and funded training providers: building a year-round enquiry pipeline, responding quickly, and earning trust before commitment.
Taylor has a named track record of recruiting thousands of learners for providers.
The reader in mind is a training provider filling course places, not an L&D team designing learning for its own employees.
Cierra works as an instructional designer and technology trainer who documents the process rather than the conclusion, matching Gutierrez's habit of showing the method.
Read more
In one post, they run a survey, analyze the responses thematically, use the most common struggle to choose a single topic for a short session, and explain why they set the agenda that way.
Elsewhere, they try a new AI tool on a bad day and turn the output into something they can share.
Both treat experimentation with new tools as part of the job.
Cierra's setting is a school district and short technology training sessions, with an emphasis on UX research methods and personal skill-building as they move into user experience work. Gutierrez frames similar instincts at the level of organizational learning strategy, client engagements, and recurring peer groups rather than individual sessions.
Eichenberg comes from learning and development into change management and makes the argument closest to Gutierrez's: training and communication alone do not change behavior.
Read more
They press leaders past reflex answers about it being employees' job to learn the new system, arguing that motivation and a full picture of how people are affected determine whether anything gets adopted. That's the same diagnosis-first position they take on learning content.
Eichenberg offers a structured change-impact analysis—ten ways employees can be affected, walked through a CRM rollout down to performance reviews and compensation—for leaders at the start of an organizational change. Gutierrez offers a custom learning design sequence plus AI-focused practitioner sessions for instructional designers.
The only published audience figure is 1,341 LinkedIn followers, recorded 9 October 2026.
Read more
The four posts—an invitation to an instructional design networking group, a session on building an AI automation in Make.com, an argument for diagnosing learning problems before building courses, and a reflection on measuring growth in L&D work—are aimed at learning-and-development and instructional-design practitioners.
That suggests a route to L&D peers interested in workflow and tooling, rather than a documented executive or enterprise-buyer audience.
Before committing budget, ask for follower demographics by job function, seniority, industry, and location, any audience survey results, and engagement figures for the L&D and AI-automation posts.
No sponsorship or partnership offer appears in Megan Gutierrez’s posts.
Read more
The four available posts list no sponsor policies, media kits, rate cards, audience specifications, or inquiry route for brand partnerships, and none discloses a paid brand collaboration.
Instead, they describe a service relationship: Gutierrez works with organizations on custom learning design, runs a diagnostic phase before designing solutions, and convenes two monthly practitioner groups—the Instructional Design Networking Group and the Connections Networking Group—open to other learning and development professionals.
Brands should ask directly whether sponsorship is available and, if so, request the terms and pricing.
A workflow-automation or no-code software vendor wants a practitioner-led session series that reaches instructional designers and learning-and-development managers while they are choosing tools, plus supporting content for the managers who approve the purchase.
Read more
Decision: yes, with conditions to confirm first.
Megan Gutierrez already runs the format this vendor needs.
One post describes an Instructional Design Networking Group session where the group builds a real AI automation in Make.com, with the topic chosen by a LinkedIn poll: a file-to-milestone update, a weekly progress pulse, a content auto-tagger, a learner support chatbot, and a longer list including SME review summaries, notes-to-action-items, objectives-and-outline generation, storyboard QA, a survey analyzer, and a timeline assistant.
The stated approach is to learn the build and then demonstrate it on the call, and the sessions are open to instructional designers whether they are new to AI or already experimenting.
That is a tool-visible working demonstration rather than a product mention, which is the thing a vendor selling automation usually cannot buy directly.
The diagnostic argument gives the campaign its spine.
The four-phase method runs Diagnose, Design, Integrate, Evolve, and it starts from the claim that organizations misread learning problems: low engagement is treated as a content problem, skill gaps produce another course, adoption friction produces more integrations.
The example given is a client that asked for better onboarding content, where the diagnostic phase instead surfaced misaligned incentives between departments and a siloed platform ecosystem.
A vendor whose product addresses workflow or systems problems can sit inside that argument instead of competing with course libraries.
Two recurring groups give repeat visibility rather than a single appearance: the Instructional Design Networking Group and a Connections Networking Group that meets on the second Friday of every month.
A monthly cadence means a sponsor can be present across a series.
Conditions: Gutierrez's posts do not say whether a sponsorship offer, rate card, media kit, or inquiry route is available; ask directly about availability and terms before planning.
The posts also do not describe the audience composition; ask for audience data to confirm whether it includes instructional designers and learning-and-development managers.
When to choose a specialist
An enterprise software brand wants a paid sponsored-post campaign aimed at verified senior learning-and-development budget holders at large employers, and requires audience demographics, engagement benchmarks, and published sponsorship rates to justify the spend.
Read more
Decision: no, based on what Megan Gutierrez's posts say.
Three specific reasons.
First, the only measured audience figure is 1,341 LinkedIn followers, recorded 9 October 2026.
There is no demographic, geographic, seniority, or industry breakdown, and no engagement data for any post, so the requirement to demonstrate senior buyer reach cannot be met.
The four posts read as written for fellow learning-and-development and instructional-design practitioners.
That is a plausible route to peers and practitioners, not a documented route to enterprise budget holders.
Second, there are no commercial terms to buy against.
Gutierrez's posts do not say whether there is a sponsor policy, media kit, rate card, audience specification, inquiry route, or disclosed paid collaboration.
Ask directly whether sponsorship is available and request the terms, audience specification, and rates.
A campaign that requires published rates and performance guarantees cannot be filled from what the posts say.
Third, there is no outcome information.
The client engagement appears in summary form only, with no client name, timeline, or measured result.
The growth-measurement argument appears in reflective and motivational posts, and the posts do not show a completed measurement framework or client results attached to it.
A campaign sold on demonstrated business outcomes would rest on claims that the posts do not substantiate.
A worked campaign example
Campaign angle: “Diagnose before you build.” A three-part arc for a workflow or automation vendor, built on what Megan Gutierrez already does.
Part one, diagnostic lead magnet.
Turn the Diagnose phase into a short worksheet a learning manager completes before talking to a vendor: name the symptom (low engagement, skill gap, adoption friction), list the incentives, systems, and skill gaps that might sit underneath it, and say what would count as a changed behavior rather than a completion number.
The post supplies the framing and the four phase names; the worksheet makes the first step portable and gives the vendor a lead-capture asset with a real method behind it.
Part two, live build session.
Run the format from the instructional design networking group: attendees vote on which automation to build, then Gutierrez learns it and demonstrates it on the call, with the vendor's tool as the one used in the build.
Keep the candidate list close to the post's own examples, such as SME review to summary, notes to action items, objectives and outline, survey analyzer, or timeline assistant, because those are the tasks this audience already recognizes.
The tool appears as the instrument, not the subject.
Part three, follow-up on measurement.
Close with the growth question from the year-end post: was growth counted in training hours, completion rates, and end-of-module test scores, or in changed behaviors, trust, and connections?
Ask attendees to answer for their own programs and report back at the next monthly session.
That gives the series a recurring slot and a reason for the audience to return.
Worked handoff for the brand: hold the session on the second Friday, alongside the Connections Networking Group cadence, so it lands inside an existing monthly habit; keep the audience open to instructional designers new to automation, as the instructional design group does; and record what attendees actually built and used.
Tradeoff and next step.
The angle trades reach for depth: a small practitioner audience that does the work, rather than a large passive one.
Before committing budget, confirm whether sponsorship is available and on what terms, and ask for follower demographics, engagement figures for the automation and diagnostic posts, and one completed project with a named client and result.
If those come back empty, the campaign can still run on the method, but it should be priced and measured as a practitioner series rather than a reach buy.
Choose Lauren Taylor over Megan Gutierrez when the campaign's buyer is a training provider trying to fill funded courses, not an instructional designer or L&D manager choosing an automation tool.
Read more
Taylor's posts address that problem directly: why a fully funded course still does not fill, why recruiting only when a course is due to start creates pressure and rushed enrolments, and what a year-round system looks like—building a pipeline, answering enquiries quickly, sharing outcome stories, staying visible weekly, and running a dedicated recruitment process.
Taylor also gives a concrete scale marker, saying The Skills Angels recruited over 2,700 learners in a year for UK training providers.
For a vendor selling recruitment or marketing automation into further education, that is closer to the buyer's daily decision than Gutierrez's diagnostic and tool-build sessions.
The tradeoff is audience and problem.
Taylor's material speaks to training-provider recruitment and further education marketing; it does not show instructional-design tool evaluation, no-code automation builds, or L&D manager purchase approval.
A vendor seeking practitioner-led sessions where instructional designers test workflow automation would reach a different buyer and miss the tool-visible demonstrations Gutierrez already runs.
Choose Cierra C. over Megan Gutierrez when the campaign needs a practitioner showing how they test a tool and turn user feedback into a short training session, rather than a recurring automation build series.
Read more
Cierra's posts describe a concrete process: run a Google Form survey asking how often people use a newly adopted district tool, what they struggle with, and what features they want; thematically review responses; pick one recurring need for a 10-minute live session; and open the session by explaining the topic came from user requests.
Cierra also documents using Gemini Storybook to turn a rough day into a reflective story, showing comfort with new AI features.
For a vendor seeking a lighter-weight demonstration of tool research and session design, Cierra's evidence is closer to the practitioner task.
The tradeoff is depth and repeatability.
The posts cover two subjects: a short professional development session and a creative AI use.
They do not document a series or automation build, or provide audience data for instructional designers and L&D managers.
Gutierrez already runs a recurring networking group where members choose an automation and the session demonstrates a real build.
A vendor seeking a repeatable, tool-visible workshop cadence would get less from Cierra's current posts.
Choose Jennifer Eichenberg over Megan Gutierrez when the campaign needs a change-management argument aimed at managers who must make employees adopt a new system.
Read more
Eichenberg's posts make that case: motivation is the missing ingredient in training, sharing WIIFM at the start is not enough, employees have competing priorities, and much of the value from a new system accrues to the organization rather than the individual.
A second post argues change management is more than communication and training, then lists ten impact areas—processes, systems, tools, job roles, critical behaviors, mindset, reporting structure, performance reviews, compensation, and location—using a CRM implementation as the example.
For a vendor selling a workflow or automation tool into L&D, HR, or operations, that manager-facing adoption framing could provide a stronger spine than a practitioner build session.
The tradeoff is recency and format.
Eichenberg's posts date from February 2024 and offer advisory commentary, not instructional-design tool demonstrations or no-code build sessions.
A vendor seeking current instructional designers to see a tool working inside a session should ask for current audience and engagement data; Eichenberg offers the adoption argument but not the hands-on, tool-visible format Gutierrez already supplies.
Megan Gutierrez's LinkedIn posts cover diagnosing learning problems and a four-phase custom learning design process, an instructional design networking group building a real AI automation in Make.com, commitment in a Motivation Monday post, and measuring growth in a year-end post.
The posts carry no publication dates; the automation post refers to 8 and 12 December without a year.
Comparison sections cover posts from three other creators, dated February 2024 to July 2026.
The only audience figure published here is 1,341 LinkedIn followers recorded 9 October 2026.
Megan Gutierrez's posts do not establish a wider career history, signature books, shows, or earlier work, named clients or measured project outcomes, audience demographics or engagement figures, or a documented sponsorship offer, rate card, or inquiry route.
Those are open questions to check directly, not claims this profile can make.
