It's a truism that you get what you measure in a team or a business. When L&D acts as just an optional support function, it's "success measures" include: Number of participant days Number of courses / new courses per year Course rating evaluations Number of 'visits' to 'it's' 'platforms' Number of 'log ins' and 'page views' Number of 'training days' invested per employee Average investment cost per 'learning resource' Average 'training investment' cost per employee These measures reinforce a primary role to serve only speed to compliance and control over training. When L&D chooses to lead the culture and capability to solve problems in an organisation, it's value could be measured by: The alignment of business goals and performance expectations in the organisation How deeply the L&D team is embedded across the organisation Their contributions to progress on the busines

There is a familiar cycle for the way that many L&D teams operate in corporate organisations. The common recipe includes: 1. The organisation hasn't defined the role and priority of 'learning'; (i.e. to accelerate change, move the work culture, improve individual and team performance, enable the business strategy) 2. The L&D team (who are unable to influence the'Why?') get stuck as reactive training order takers 3. Ideas get watered down through rounds of 'pleasing the teacher' meetings resulting in 'Learning programs' and 'Learning solutions'; (interchangeable words for ease of political passage) 4. 'Learning programs' are a drain on time / costs / interest for everyone; (especially for 'busy people' on the 'front line' doing the 'real work') 5. Measurement of benefits from 'Learning programs' is difficult / negligible / hard to keep people's attention on 6. As the work performance i