Lots of noise on the topic of L&D being more like the marketing department. This seems to mean using new broadcast tools to interrupt busy workers and try to convince them they should do what L&D thinks is good for them. For L&D teams determined to lead real change, it can be helpful to apply some marketing 'brand building' rigour to sharpen the focus: In four simple statements, define: The current context of work and learning in your organisation; The current problems for employees and managers that need to be solved and why; How the L&D strategy helps to provide solutions to their problems; The impact of successfully implementing the strategy (and not) for the success of the organisation Hone this until it is unmistakably clear and sharp for everyone who needs to understand it (Next, what and who needs to be aligned in your organisation for your L&D strategy to start to drive change?) Paul helps L&D teams to connect the disconnecte

True - to support today's disrupted world of work. But the basis of 'L&D' comes from the traditional, industrialised model of work: Success in the 'Build > Sell > Cut costs > Build cheaper' era required efficiency, compliance and conformity; Stakeholders and leaders needed certainty of output and results; "Training" and measurement fast tracked the idea of control in the system; Responsibility for "Training" could easily be sub-contracted out to a "Business Support" function; (whilst leaders got on with the really important stuff...). Much current L&D focus and investment still links back to this industrial mindset of driving efficiency and standardisation across an organisation. I believe this is revealed by: 'L&D's ongoing battle to demonstrate 'value' to senior people The need to find acceptance from the organisation The need to create and manage 'resources' that provide &