Posts

AI and the (inevitable) missed opportunity for corporate learning

"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).

Learning and working are kept separate

"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'.

Why 'Capability' projects get agreed

"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

Minor reforms

"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.

Organisational astrology

"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

Learning stops at the power boundary

"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

Industrial leaders don't want the 'problem' reframed

"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.

Paradigms and incentives

"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?

Blockers to performance worth focusing on

"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

Typical 'L&D' priorities in control based organisations

"Most of today's leaders don't 'put anything in place'. They simply adapt what's already in place without question. Hence, the holding over of the industrial model when the nature of work has changed. No skepticism about traditions or curiosity about future models." @SySTEMHabits In control based organisations, 'L&D' teams (inevitably) adopt these preoccupations, priorities and routines: 1. A fundamental focus on 'learning' over enabling (new) performance 2. Creating centralised, 'learning' 'content' 3. Scaling access to and 'delivery' of the 'learning' 'content'  4. Skills definition and standardisation (focused on 'topics' over 'tasks') 5. Ensuring project and programme consistency 6. Optimising for 'content' consumption and 'course completions' (see points one to five above).

What (still) drives investment in 'learning' inside organisations

"In complex domains, increased procedural efficiency does not equate to increased productivity." Doc Norton  In 2024 the common drivers for new 'learning' investments are inevitably still the same inside bureaucratic organisations: 1. Business reacting to external events 2. Cost reduction initiatives 3. 'Digitisation' (cost optimisation) of existing business processes 4. Process standardisation projects 5. Responding to compliance audit risks.

Why training still wins

"I think people in power have a vested interest to oppose critical thinking." Carl Sagen The current system in most organisations forms the cultural norm that "learning" (only) equates to "getting training". Most senior leaders are passive on this as they continue to benefit.  Here's my list of reasons that ensure training is still favoured - over proactively creating environments that enable continual learning: 1. Control 2. Easy to separate from the 'real work' (and so deprioritise) 3. Easy to devolve responsibility down (which L&D teams gladly accept) 4. Easy to manage as a project checklist item (safety in the familiar plan / budget / delivery zone) 5. Fits with the 'just get people to execute!' mantra 6. Leaders can maintain their own behaviour as-is ('do as we say not what we do').