"It's difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon him not understanding it." Upton Sinclair Some personal assertions to end the year: Individual performance has a tiny impact on the overall performance of an organisation Overall performance is a reflection of the system - which is wholly owned by leaders It suits leaders to demand focus on individual performance rather than their system Corporate 'Learning and Development' is systemically un-systemic  When organisations say 'Learning' they mean 'education' The education model suits leaders as it maintains the separation between 'learning' and working Shifting from education requires the imagination and commitment to see learning as the work  Being "productive" would then (have) to mean, "learning better and faster" The goal of corporate 'L&D' teams (who are part of the education system) is to make better training Most trainin...

"It's difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon him not understanding it." Upton Sinclair No CEO is worried about the impact of their L&D team.

"To do more of what is not working currently, is to do more of what will not work in the future. The curious thing is that the righter you do the wrong thing, the wronger you become." Russell Ackoff The lack of progress in corporate L&D is systemic. Look at the conference agendas, keynotes, podcasts, and book titles now and compare them to 15 years ago. Almost the same issues, word for word. There's a deep rooted status quo built around doing the wrong thing righter. Four of the most common examples, if you can't / don't / dare not see them: 1. Anything related to 'making training better' (because you probably didn't need a training solution in the first place). 2. Anything related to telling workers how they need to do more of what you're telling them to do - now termed 'Marketing for L&D' (because it probably isn't directly related to helping them do their job more effectively and to get what they want). 3. Anything related to...

"In a system, the best way to treat a problem is seldom where the problem appears, because of the interaction of the parts." Donella H. Matthews The 'problems' in corporate learning are inevitably framed and defined by the people already in corporate learning. This group think leads to a familiar list of problems that inevitably can't be solved: 'We need a 'learning culture' 'We need to stop taking orders from 'the business'' 'We need to become performance led' 'We need to stop defaulting to training as the only solution' 'We need to stop creating more content' 'The new technology didn't deliver as promised.' These examples are not 'the problems' of course - they are symptoms - simply features of the current system.  Instead, we can choose to look at the interaction of the different parts of the system - that have created these outputs over time. These might include: How leaders have create...

"You can get anybody to agree anything in a workshop but if you don't change the social context, it all changes when they get back (to work)." Dave Snowden We can shift the performance of organisations and potentially the performance of the individuals within it if we focus on the underlying system.  This would lead us to put effort, time and resources against: Challenging and evolving the assumptions and beliefs of leaders who own the system Choosing to re-imagine and reset organisational goals  Choosing to reset policies, process and measurement systems to enable the new organisational goals Choosing to change the current organisational rules around incentives and rewards to align with the new organisational goals  Choosing to change the way that information, ideas and feedback flows through the organisation. However, this is demanding, politically sensitive, 'risky', long term, collaborative work. (And mostly counter intuitive to industrial leaders who benefit ...

"A lack of transformative change cannot be compensated by working harder (or funding harder) at incremental change." Dr Elizabeth Sawin I'd argue there are only two types of 'transformative' ambition in 'corporate learning': 1. Actively working to change the environment. This means L&D leaders deliberately working and lobbying to change a current organisational system which limits continual learning and performance potential.  This is hard, (inevitably) politically dangerous, and brave work. It requires a systemic perspective and a willingness to move as far and as fast as needed with leaders who will typically resist.  (What limits continual learning in most organisations - where 'learning' is re-defined beyond education - are choices of policies, processes, incentives, rewards, and measurement).  Where changing the environment is too much, too soon - or clearly futile: 2. Actively working to re-set design standards to maximise performance i...

"You can change the way people get what they want. Or you can change what they want." Seth Godin As we head into another 'strategic planing' season for corporate L&D teams, it's worth reflecting that their previous efforts have never changed what most organisational leaders want from them: Familiarity Control Certainty 'Delivered' through: Project plans Content and comms. Events A separation between 'learning' and working To ensure: No direct impact on leaders' own chosen priorities...

"The biggest obstacles are internal." Shane Parrish Here are some new questions for annual 'L&D' planning season: Are the challenges for our organisation technical or adaptive (or both)? What are the specific features of 'readiness' for our organisation? How much of the value we create for customers is from known, stable, work and processes? Is this changing? How fast? How much time and resource is invested in asking new questions and identifying new possibilities? Is this deliberate? Do people always fulfil their potential here? Why? Do we trust our employees? How willing are we to change what we do now - to get to where we say we want to be instead?

"All change must start in the heads and thinking of managers. Unfortunately, this is unusual. Systems thinking is necessary. Unfortunately, silo thinking and suboptimisation are still the norm." Jan Jensrud Most leaders view their organisation in the 'technical' paradigm. Put simply, their business is a set of processes and structures (however poorly defined) which can be improved by 'fixing' or 'changing' in some way.  In this model, leaders are (inevitably) assumed to be the 'experts' and so the focus of the work beneath them is on executing their plans. Organisational development initiatives are (inevitably) approached in the same way. This breeds the default diet of centralised programmes, a focus on individuals, compliance, 'topics' (AKA 'skills'), content creation, and 'success' measured through activity (course completions) and reaction ('smile sheets'). First fact: The choice of management model determine...

"I think people in power have a vested interest to oppose critical thinking." Carl Sagan Most people in organisational learning are only busy working in the current system - doing what is expected, incentivised, and rewarded.  Every year the work is a combination of: Creating new 'programmes' and 'content' in response to new requests Finding new ways to 'market' the learning 'programmes' and 'content'  Introducing new technologies to create new 'programmes' and 'content' faster and / or cheaper Finding new ways to report on people's activity and reaction to the 'programmes' and 'content' Finding ways to run the 'programmes' and 'content' more cheaply. What would need to change for there to be appetite, ambition and capacity to work ON the system instead?

"In my opinion, you begin with understanding performance, not learning. What exceptional performance looks like and what is 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 In most organisations, the system ('the way the work works') results in a focus on 'Learning' rather than on enabling better performance.  The 'Learning' zone is a vague and therefore comfortable place for those who operate within it and benefit from maintaining it.  The 'Learning' zone is clearly separated from the 'supporting performance in the work zone' (which is dependant on defining operational performance standards)  and The (true) training zone (which is dependant on facilitating realistic practice and authentic ongoing feedback). The 'Learning...