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


I work as a thinking partner and advisor with mid sized, value oriented companies going through significant change. I help you to build new capability and mindsets through shifting your approach to organisational development.

Comments

Post a Comment

Please let me know your thoughts on this...

Popular posts from this blog

The human stuff is the basis of 'digital learning transformations'...

The human stuff is the basis of 'digital learning transformations'. The technology platforms are secondary. They work best when: They help to simplify or speed up what people have always done while working; (research / answer questions / share / store) They enable people to work in new ways that they have learned are more efficient and effective; (cooperatively / 'out loud' / across different teams) A 'digital mindset' for businesses could include these ideas: Constant change is inescapable - so it's curiosity and adaptability that create value in work teams New possibilities and solutions come from connecting many sources of information People can take responsibility for solving work problems Failing fast is helpful Creating wide and diverse networks of expertise and experience is crucial Customer ('end user') centricity keeps everyone better aligned Silos don't help Flatter, less hierarchical teams move ideas and solutions
Read more

Why organisations resist thinking of themselves as connected 'systems'

“In a world of separation and domination, systems thinking is subversive.” Dr Elizabeth Sawin The key to improving the work of organisations - and the contributions of the people in them - is to look at them as connected 'systems'. (Put another way, because improving the performance of individual silos won’t make the overall performance of the organisation any better). However nobody seems to want to do this. So, who’s resisting systems thinking? Executives don’t want it because means questioning the current mindset and behaviours that have brought them status and ‘results’ Individual managers don’t want it because they assume it threatens their control over their local silos L&D / HR don’t want it because their remit does not extent to the organisation, as its still rooted in the ‘performance’ of individuals (and occasionally, specific teams). And employees don't want it because they often don’t care / need to care about the overall organisation.
Read more

"The future of corporate Learning and Development" debate is five different things

"Pushing fancy new stuff onto your organisation will not change the outcomes if that is not emerging from your system itself, through the ripening of a different worldview." Stelio Verzera The perennial topic  of "The future of corporate Learning and Development" is always everywhere. This ' Shirky Principle ' fuels and sustains the status quo and the players that continue to benefit from it. I'd argue that the discussion is in fact five very   different conversations happening in parallel, but unequally distributed. They are - in current descending order of noise, ambition and opportunity: 1. 'MAKE THE TRAINING BETTER'. The status quo. The economic model. Dependent on maintaining the belief that educating individual workers changes the system through which complex, interconnected organisations perform. This narrative is carefully preserved by (mostly) commercial vendors who have filled the strategy vacuum. New technologies, new (and old) instruc
Read more