"Long-term thinking eliminates a lot of poor behavior." Shane Parish The opposite of overthinking is under-thinking. Under-thinking is the bedrock of the status quo in corporate learning and development: Leaders' ideas shape our priorities Received priorities are fundamental to our plans 'Topics' are our currency Content is a 'strategy' Providing more content is the goal  Consuming content (alone) changes performance Familiar things satisfy and so that's good enough Activity is a helpful measure Positive reactions from 'users' justify our approach People need help to stop their work and to start 'learning' Technology helps the L&D team get what it wants.

"All too often, managers surround themselves with people whose life experiences mirror their own. Over time, the gene pool becomes a stagnant pond. Year after year, it's the same people having the same conversations about the same issues, often in the same beige conference rooms. That has to change." Michele Zanini The economic model of large scale L&D conferences relies on perpetuating old mantras. The familiar themes don't change as the formula is always the same: 1. Position outputs as inputs (Example: ' We need a new approach to learning ...') + 2. Position new technologies as a shortcut + 3. Distract people from systems change. Some typical conference hall tropes that can't change in the present system: (Tick them off in the conference programme...) 'Moving to a performance focus' 'Creating business value' 'Creating more 'pull' for our 'learning products' 'Aligning learning to the business' 'Building

"L&D will need to change its business model and operating models if it's to exploit AI. And change its mindset too - from 'learning' (input) to 'performance' (output). That will be a stretch as most are tied into content development factories and I fear they'll just use Gen AI to produce more content faster and miss the real opportunity." Charles Jennings AI is the latest lucrative, pied piper saviour helping to distract corporate L&D from its strategy vacuum. L&D's pathological (and comfortable) obsession with 'content creation' will inevitably steer any relationship with AI tools in the same way it has with every other new technology. The real opportunity for AI tools is to help devolve responsibility for solving real business problems FURTHER AWAY from centralised curriculum and courses. (And there won't be many in L&D promoting that leap).

"Applying curiosity is not possible in a reactive state." Nathalie Martinek PhD The 'philosophical' definition of 'learning' is very rarely discussed inside bureaucracies as the risks are too high. When leaders challenge themselves and reflect on new possibilities, status, power, comfort, routine and control can be threatened. The characteristics of 'learning' -  beyond directive, centralised, reactive, corporate adult education, might include: A supportive, developmental environment: Curiosity and the safety to question Access to new ideas Ability to experiment   Connectivity across teams Questions and Reflection as the basis of progress This leap - enabled by taking responsibility for building a system within which learning is the work is difficult work for leaders.  It's just easier to keep 'learning' as a separate, process oriented, compliance orientated 'Programme'.

"Projects are often not selected due to merit but by: Squeaky wheel advocacy Political influence Savvy system gaming Financial considerations in a vacuum  Some combination of the above in lieu of discussion of benefit or linkage to strategy." Rick Morris This quote feels very relevant to the way 'capability projects' are initiated in corporate businesses.  Vested interests between leaders and HR teams who have little incentive to analyse their systems, inevitably create copy-cat lists of performative busy work.  The standard approach to prioritisation optimises for the path of least resistance. Most planning processes are informed by: What we always do What the leader(s) told us to do What we think 'our people' need 'How the planning process works' Things that will get approved What we didn't finish last year What everyone else is doing What the external research said we should do Where the money runs out How we're structured What we are curre

"Manufactured urgency is one way entrenched power defends against systemic change. If everyone is rushing around, they lack the capacity to reflect, analyse, and organise." Erika Hall Corporate learning and development inevitably remains in sync with the industrial management complex it serves. Churning out low quality noise. Expectations of 'performance' are kept deliberately vague and at arms length. In practice, 'performance' still means: Reacting Responding Assimilating Being busy Agreeing.

"Anything that keeps the focus on unquestioning execution, on rewarding individual contributors and punishing scapegoats, and not improving underlying systems. Charles Lambdin There are a host of unchallenged rituals in the world of 'organisational' 'development' that are well worth examining, because: The contribution of individual workers is a tiny factor in the overall success of an organisation 'Skills' are a tiny factor in the performance of an individual worker  Generic 'skills' definitions that are not tied to the  specific performance standards required in the work - won't change the performance of individuals or teams Access to generic content libraries has no impact on performance (as they are out of context to the 'real' work and it's challenges in the organisation) Formal learning (training courses and programs) have the least impact on performance (but still receive the most focus and investment) The level of access

"Most change within an organisation stops and a power boundary / locus that is unwilling to change itself." Matt Barcomb The systemic separation between 'the work' and 'learning' persists because it enables leaders to continue with their current preoccupations and resulting status.  If we consider some characteristics of a deliberately 'learning' organisation: Learning is understood as continual, and outside of (just) centralised, formal, 'learning activities' An intense focus on critical thinking, feedback, connections, and reflection A deliberate sense of curiosity and embracing of new and different ideas and possibilities High levels of autonomy and accountability designed to flourish as low as possible in the organisation's structures Supporting leadership systems that enable everyone's ongoing development and creates the safety to 'speak up' as part of this intent. The implications for leaders from choosing to design for t

"It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it'" Upton Sinclair For industrial leaders the answer to every 'problem' is simple - apply more control. So (almost) every corporate 'transformation' is built around: 'Being a simpler organisation' 'Driving more alignment' 'Driving cost rationalisation' 'Driving performance' 'Investing in the leaders we now need' 'All living our new values' 'Attending the new training courses we're providing' 'Having the plans to deliver what we've agreed' 'Governing the plans more effectively' The connecting theme is a focus on administrative competence, 'better' bureaucracy, and maintaining the safety of specific individuals.

"In my opinion you begin with performance, not learning. What exceptional performance looks like and what's hindering or helping it. If we start with a learning focus, we start with the intention to create and / or add something new (i.e. content) when we should start by understanding what barriers exist to exceptional performance and how to remove them." Mark Britz If your work is to create 'learning' (education) and make it more 'effective' (which you measure by completions / visits / ratings), then it's hard to be open to the idea of stopping creating 'learning'. Isn't it?

"Evidence suggests focus on 'skills-building' at the expense of carrying out a systemic analysis analysis to determine the real underlying issues is not only wasting huge amounts of money, but also inhibiting our ability to develop high performing individuals, teams and organisations." Tulser Here are some common systemic blockers to performance that someone / a team could enable leaders to acknowledge and focus on: 1. Not defining the characteristics of 'high performance' for individuals, teams, and the organisation as a whole 2. Not gaining agreement on the 'gap' versus performance today 3. Social structures that prevent collaborative problem acknowledgement and problem solving  4. Inability to define and agree the capacity (space, time, resource) and capabilities (worldviews, systems thinking, resources) needed to thrive in a changed world 5. Intent to challenge and support leaders raised on a diet of process compliance and 'efficiency' meas