It's easy to see what the work of 'Learning and Development' used to be for...

The basis of "L&D" came from the factory. The industrial era of repeatable work, low tolerance for mistakes and individual skills for fixed jobs. Value was created from this efficiency and compliance. The role of "training" was simple and transactional:

"Take what we've agreed workers need to know, to do what we need them to do. Make sure they understand and follow."

The status roles were clear in the hierarchy:

The process owner - high status; needed to maintain this position so execution and results were always the urgent default

The trainer - low status work; reacting to the process owners, dutifully serving by providing the tools and tactics of knowledge transfer programmes.

The worker on the line - lowest status work; following orders, an interchangeable cog in the system

In so many respects this description of "factory work" sounds far removed from the work we recognise today. Interestingly, this historical model still drives much of today's corporate L&D approach despite the monumental shifts in the landscape of work it should serve.

We could describe the new and emerging patterns of value creating organisations in the "connection economy" to include:

From business value created from scaling efficiency - to value from scaling and accelerating learning and adaptability

From individuals and small groups of "senior people" owning strategy and the "means of production" - to the autonomy and speed of the digital era

From a focus on individual fixed skills and jobs - to connected, focused, enrolled groups engaging purposefully with customers and opportunities

It's easy to see what "L&D" used to be for. It's still difficult to describe what (and who?) it is for in work today...


Paul works with L&D teams to develop organisations who are ready for work now and in the future