"And remember, it's a collective devotion to conventional thinking that send organisations over the cliff of irrelevance." Gary Hamel Three reflections on conventional thinking: If you're a leader who is benefiting from operating a control based hierarchical system, then you're probably not interested in ways to operate a less control based hierarchical system. If your vendor commercial model - or internal 'L&D strategy' - relies on training as the 'solution', it's unlikely you'll be interested in acknowledging organisations as complex, connected systems. As Clay Shirky one wrote, 'institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.' The underpinning magical idea in the industrial, commercial 'L&D' model (including 'learning technology' vendors, conferences, awards programs, consulting, 'maturity models', podcasts etc. etc.) is that we can 'fix L&D' whilst everyth...

"It is the very fact that we find it difficult to motivate ourselves to become curious about systems - and work on listening to and understanding systems - that hinders us from asking and seeing what is really needed for transforming the health of systems." Josh Colchester The unmet opportunity for corporate 'L&D' - or (probably) some other team or group - is to help enable and facilitate the conditions for continuous learning that builds organisational adaptability.  This is a leadership challenge for the team - as it sets a fundamentally new expectation for the function: as facilitators of systems with and for the organisation.

"Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets." Donald Berwick The idea of corporate learning (education) operating as 'shop keepers' is not new ( Andrew Jacobs talks about it frequently). The basis if the corporate learning 'shop keeping' model is simple: 'We develop interesting learning products' 'We fill our shelves' (Learning Management System / Learning Experience Platform / SharePoint site etc.) 'We market our products to potential consumers' 'We ask them if they enjoyed our product' 'We ask them what they want next and develop new products' 'We keep the shelves full'. Etc. When we see this self-perpetuating bureaucratic model its impossible to 'un-see' it.  The roles, overheads and performative routines that grow up around the 'shop keeping' model in corporate learning reinforce its detachment from the work systems that actually enable or limit performance.  

"I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.' Maslow The Shirky Principle  prevents corporate 'Learning and Development' teams (note the how this team title reinforces what's coming...) from looking beyond a 'learning' 'solution'. In the complex organisational systems in which the 'L&D' team work, there are a host of influences and factors that could be reviewed, considered and challenged first: Are performance expectations clearly defined? Are performance expectations fully understood? (Are the barriers to achieving the agreed performance expectations understood and accounted for?) Is there a routine of regular and insightful feedback provided to support people to achieve the agreed performance standards? Can people easily access information, data, resources and guidance needed to achieve and maintain the agreed performance standards? Are performance and processes - and supp...

"In any organisation, the likelihood of exceptional performance is inversely related to the number of bureaucrats." Gary Hamel The industrial education model relies on keeping 'Learning' separated from working: There is a separate 'Learning' team There is a separate IT system where people go to find 'their Learning' There is a separate budget allocated to pay for 'creating' 'Learning' 'Learning objectives' are proposed / suggested 'Learning hours' are tracked and reported upon. Reframing 'learning' beyond education and providing content (AKA communication) is unpalatable to those who benefit from and rely on keeping 'Learning' separate from working.

"This allows executives to claim a focus on systems while still penalising individual contributors, thereby circumventing any meaningful systemic interrogation. This also conveniently negates leader responsibility for the very system they are in fact responsible for, simply by virtue of happening to be the ones in charge." Charles Lambdin Commercial vendors in corporate learning (inevitably) trade in improving individual parts on the system: 'Improve your 'Learning needs analysis'' 'Stop taking orders' 'Provide more performance support' 'Stop creating e-learning modules' 'Improve your measurement - no more 'happy sheets'' 'Upgrade your Learning Management System to a Learning Experience Platform' 'Use the right data' Etc. Etc. Etc. The reality is these individual interventions are usually incompatible with the existing system and so fail to take hold and scale. If we can step back from allowing vendors to...

"Those who successfully managed a company to maturity are unlikely to be able to manage it back to youth." Russell Ackoff The work of Jane Hart can help to reposition the role of learning, and shift the focus from providing education and content to enabling performance The work of Charles Jennings can help to reframe learning away from formal, central, interventions towards the reality of learning and improving performance through work and our networks The work of Guy W. Wallace can help to fundamentally reset the way to define and align investments and design standards towards enabling performance The work of Clark N. Quinn can help to embed science based pedagogy into design strategy and principles The work of Will Thalheimer can help to fundamentally reset our thinking, approach, and delivery of performance impact oriented measurement. (To name just a few). So, the challenge isn't a lack of effective alternatives to the status quo - the challenge is how to create the ...

"We do not rise to the level of our goals. We fall to the levels of our systems." James Clear I think we are in the third (maybe fourth?) decade of " L&D need to demonstrate value ". In reality, the lack of demonstrable value is a feature of the status quo system - not a 'bug'.

"Reminder that when your leaders are primarily interested in consolidating power and building fiefdoms, they sap the organisation of its ability to optimise decision making." Charles Lambdin 'Why training still' wins is a regular theme - either directly or indirectly in my blog. I wrote on this around this time last year (see January 5th 2024 post). At this time of the year there's the perennial noise from edtech vendor sales teams and vendor CLO missionaries on how corporate L&D should ditch training and buy their platform instead.  The entrenchment of training is simply a symptom of the dominance of control based leadership. It reflects the power dynamics at play - and inevitably the status quo system continues to deliver. Here's the simple power play: Leaders believe they know best The role of 'training' is to create a standardised workforce (immediately assumes people are robots and operating on a stable, sanitised environment - both wrong, but...

"If you do not understand your role on the problem, it is difficult to be part of the solution." David Peter Stroh Internal corporate Learning and Development teams and their vendor partners are wholly unregulated.  (The 'L&D' industry awards Ponzi Scheme and paid up front, 'accreditation' deals don't count). The systemic lack of impact, enablement, and measurement in the 'L&D' industry stems from this lack of a central 'code of practice'. So, unregulated internal 'L&D' teams (often made up of ex-classroom trainers, 'HR generalists', project managers and e-learning designers) rely on external vendors (who are incentivised to serve up the expected, familiar diet of digital long-form communication). The passive acceptance of 'action' (i.e. course attendance / completion) and 'reaction' ('liked' or 'enjoyed the experience') as the only indicators of 'impact' means that sub-sta...

"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...