"Treating training as the 'encoding' of skills and knowledge in students and employees to create a ready and immediately deployable workforce is a disastrous fit for this VUCA economy..." Heather McGowan Most corporate 'L&D' is built on the centralised, industrial era priority of efficiency through control. The underpinning perspective: "Get given a problem by Management and solve it" . Reacting to the urgent. The immovable mantra? "Let's make the training better" . I believe this mindset is now being further reinforced by the new group-think drama of 'data and analytics'. Showing Management (using their own language) that 'L&D' is a willing ally in the quest to 'drive efficiencies'; (and reduce costs). So I see 'L&D's continuing bureaucratic focus on: 'Topics' ( what we say you need ) 'Content' ( where we say you can find it ) and 'Channels' ( when w

"Where we all think alike, no-one thinks much at all" Walt Whitman It's interesting to reflect on the the industrial structures and bureaucratic language now adopted by many corporate 'L&D' teams: "Learning solution" "Learning program" "Learning delivery plan" "Learning implementation" "Capability framework" "Learning requirements" "Skills matrices" "Learning deployment activities" "Learning objectives tracking" "Learning measurement framework" This narrative reinforces a view of "learning" which is functionally structured and centrally controlled. I believe L&D's ongoing quest to be accepted as bona fide function has driven this shift in language. The choice to align with what is familiar and expected by senior leaders, in particular Management's apparent interest in only what can be "measured". Here are som